Unfortunately the right is blocked behind a paywall.
hillsfar on
Yes. And… how will they enforce it?
India has about 17.8% of the world population and emits about 8% of world carbon emissions.
Well, the amount per capita is lower than many developed countries, is lower it is still a large portion.
As a developing country, India is greatly in increasing usage of fossil fuels. The economy and economic growth is heavily dependent on it.
ApocalypseYay on
>The Supreme Court of India recognises the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
The right is free.
As is the enforcement.
thorzeen on
Has anyone explained to them what climate change is?
805shadowfigure on
What does that even mean?
theman-dalorian on
Global Warming*
*except for India
Gil-GaladWasBlond on
Hi y’all. I didn’t realise some of you are unable to read article the original link due to a paywall, since I’m not coming across a paywall at all there. However, here is a much more detailed article with context around this new recognition. The main idea is that the state owes a duty of care to all citizens, and the effects of climate change increase inequality as well as events that jeopardise the fundamental right to a dignified life.
EXPLAINATION: The Supreme Court has, from time to time, expanded the fundamental rights chapter to include various facets of a dignified existence. However, this is the first time that it has included the “right against the adverse effects of climate change”.
IN A significant ruling, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 to include the “right against the adverse effects of climate change”.
“Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the natural world,” a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has said.
“The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These Articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change,” it said.
While the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, gave the ruling on March 21, the detailed order was only uploaded on Saturday evening.
“Despite governmental policy and rules and regulations recognising the adverse effects of climate change and seeking to combat it, there is no single or umbrella legislation in India which relates to climate change and the attendant concerns,” the court noted. “However, this does not mean that the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change,” it added.
On the right to a clean environment, the court said: “Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised. The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life (Article 21) as well as the right to equality (Article 14).”
jhirai20 on
Can climate change be weaponized?
SelectivePreference on
This makes no sense.
How can you have a right to be free from the changing of nature?
India burns more and buys more oil than almost anyone. Their economy is dependent on it for the time being. Does this mean the legislature is required to switch to a green economy immediately?
I don’t understand how a court can just say something random without a real point of direction. Everyone currently living in New Deli is living in violation of this court order.
9 Comments
Unfortunately the right is blocked behind a paywall.
Yes. And… how will they enforce it?
India has about 17.8% of the world population and emits about 8% of world carbon emissions.
Well, the amount per capita is lower than many developed countries, is lower it is still a large portion.
As a developing country, India is greatly in increasing usage of fossil fuels. The economy and economic growth is heavily dependent on it.
>The Supreme Court of India recognises the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
The right is free.
As is the enforcement.
Has anyone explained to them what climate change is?
What does that even mean?
Global Warming*
*except for India
Hi y’all. I didn’t realise some of you are unable to read article the original link due to a paywall, since I’m not coming across a paywall at all there. However, here is a much more detailed article with context around this new recognition. The main idea is that the state owes a duty of care to all citizens, and the effects of climate change increase inequality as well as events that jeopardise the fundamental right to a dignified life.
Written by Ananthakrishnan G
Link: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/right-against-adverse-effects-of-climate-change-part-of-rights-to-life-equality-sc-9257007/lite/
EXPLAINATION: The Supreme Court has, from time to time, expanded the fundamental rights chapter to include various facets of a dignified existence. However, this is the first time that it has included the “right against the adverse effects of climate change”.
IN A significant ruling, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 to include the “right against the adverse effects of climate change”.
“Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the natural world,” a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has said.
“The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These Articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change,” it said.
While the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, gave the ruling on March 21, the detailed order was only uploaded on Saturday evening.
“Despite governmental policy and rules and regulations recognising the adverse effects of climate change and seeking to combat it, there is no single or umbrella legislation in India which relates to climate change and the attendant concerns,” the court noted. “However, this does not mean that the people of India do not have a right against the adverse effects of climate change,” it added.
On the right to a clean environment, the court said: “Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised. The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms and flooding. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life (Article 21) as well as the right to equality (Article 14).”
Can climate change be weaponized?
This makes no sense.
How can you have a right to be free from the changing of nature?
India burns more and buys more oil than almost anyone. Their economy is dependent on it for the time being. Does this mean the legislature is required to switch to a green economy immediately?
I don’t understand how a court can just say something random without a real point of direction. Everyone currently living in New Deli is living in violation of this court order.