Human Rights Implications Of Climate Change - Legal Perspectives And Case Studies

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Constitutional & Human Rights

Published: 2026-08-23T20:15:02.538385+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:17.682+00:00

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE:

LEGAL PERSPECTIVES AND CASE STUDIES

Vaishnavi Singh, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

ABSTRACT

Recently, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the right to protection from climate change impacts as part of the fundamental rights to life (Article

21) and equality (Article 14) enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This ruling

came during a case concerning the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican. SC noted that the intersection of climate change and human rights has been put into sharp focus in recent years. Climate change has profound impacts on wide variety of human rights. It is now beyond dispute that climate change caused by human activity has negative impacts on full enjoyment of human rights. OHCHR’s Key Messages on Human Rights and Climate Change highlight the essential obligations and responsibilities of States and other duty-bearers (including businesses) and their implications for climate change-related agreements, policies, and actions.

In order to foster policy coherence and help ensure that climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts are adequate, sufficiently ambitious, non-discriminatory and otherwise compliant with human rights obligations, the following considerations should be reflected in all climate action, including agreements to be negotiated at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Climate change affects the Right to Life, Right to health, Right to Food, Right to Housing, Rights of the child, Right to a healthy environment, and Right to self-determination.

INTRODUCTION

The intersection of human rights and climate change is an increasingly critical area of study and advocacy. Climate change has far-reaching implications for human rights, as it affects the environment, economies, and communities globally. Legal perspectives on these implications can be framed around several key areas. The impacts of climate change undermine the realization of a range of internationally recognized human rights, including those dealing with life, health, food, adequate standard of living, housing, property, and water. The absence of adequate protection for human rights—particularly those that provide access to information, right to public participation in decision-making, and access to remedy—exacerbates vulnerability to climate impacts, magnifying the risk faced by the marginalized communities who are disproportionately impacted by climate change.

A safe climate is an essential element of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable

environment. Diminishing sources of drinking water affect the right to water. The destruction of crops and livestock affects the right to food. The destruction of homes affects the right to housing. Many areas are becoming uninhabitable. This will lead to internal or cross-border displacement of residents, placing them, especially children, women, and minority groups, at particular risk of human rights violations. Such impacts affect the enjoyment of the right to (mental) health and the right to livelihood. They lead to unemployment, violate the right to work, force children out of school and into work, violate the right to education and encourage child labour. Other effects include an increase in gender-based violence and threats to the right to life.

States have legal obligations to protect, promote, and fulfil human rights under international conventions and must be held accountable for these obligations. They have a duty to allocate the maximum available resources to mitigate climate change and to ensure that all people have adequate means to adapt to it. Where losses as well as damages have already occurred, effective access to remedies must be provided. International human rights mechanisms play a central role in assessing these obligations. (Article 8 )1 1 Article 8 of the Convention: Right to respect for private and family life (1). Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2).

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country,

BACKGROUND

Ø Addressing climate change impacts through human right lens Climate change has not traditionally been seen as a health and human rights concern — but that may be changing following recent high-profile court cases. On April 9, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of a group of elderly swiss women case2 who claimed the government’s inadequate efforts to combat climate change put them at risk of dying during heatwaves. In India, Supreme Court recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right in the Constitution.. The court also highlighted the connection between climate change and the right to health. The World Health Organization has declared climate change to be the greatest threat to health that humanity faces.

Since climate change affects so many aspects of our lives, its effects on health and health care are complex, multiple and highly variable across geographies, ecozones and development levels. Ø Adverse effects of climate change : The adverse effects of climate change have not only posed environmental threats but have also exacted a heavy toll on India’s economy. In 2022 alone, the nation witnessed an 8% loss of GDP, amounting to a staggering $270 billion. These economic losses, fueled by climate-related disasters such as floods, droughts, and extreme weather events, underscore the urgency of mitigating climate change impacts. Furthermore, projections suggest that India could bear the brunt of 34 million out of the projected 80 million global job losses by 2030 due to declining productivity associated with heat stress.

This looming threat highlights the critical need for proactive measures to safeguard livelihoods and promote sustainable economic development. for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

2 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Bundesrat,2016 No. A-2992/2017

India is currently grappling with a myriad of acute climate change events, exacerbating the challenges faced by its populace. With nearly half of the workforce engaged in outdoor occupations, comprising over 230 million individuals, rising temperatures pose significant health risks, particularly beyond the 40-degree Celsius threshold. Moreover, vulnerable communities, including forest dwellers and indigenous populations, bear the disproportionate brunt of climate change impacts. These communities often lack access to essential resources and infrastructure, further exacerbating their vulnerability to climate-related disasters.

Ø Supreme Court of India bolts Right To Life with climate justice3: In a historic decision on April 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of India made a profound declaration, acknowledging climate change as intricately linked with fundamental rights, particularly the rights to life and equality in the judgment M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & ors. 4 This landmark ruling marks a significant milestone in India’s legal framework and underscores the urgent need to address the complex challenges posed by climate change. There are direct impacts on our bodies and communities, such as have emerged with extreme heat, droughts, floods, fires and other climate change-driven catastrophic events.

There also are more complex and indirect impacts, such as increasing food insecurity, the rising threat of infectious diseases, increased exposure to water and air pollutants, the health impacts of forced mobility and migration and the mental health and social impacts of the climate crisis that affect us on our deepest levels. Yet climate change has not traditionally been seen as a health and human rights concern — a reality which, arguably, needs to change. The lack of reliable electricity supply further compounds these challenges, hindering economic development and perpetuating inequalities, particularly among women and low-income

3 Jatinder Cheema,Supreme court of India boults right to life with climate justice, Page 1,2024

4 AIRONLINE 2021 SC 209

households. Addressing these systemic challenges requires a holistic approach that prioritizes environmental justice and equitable access to resources. The recognition of climate change as a fundamental right carries profound legal implications, shaping the trajectory of environmental policy and governance in India. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized the importance of contextualizing rights to equality and life in light of scientific consensus on climate change and its adverse effects. Furthermore, the court underscored the need to consider other rights of affected communities, such as the right against displacement, in its decisions. This holistic approach to environmental justice underscores the intersectionality of climate change with broader socio-economic and human rights issues.

Globally, climate change has inflicted substantial economic losses, disproportionately affecting low-income countries and tropical regions. The total economic loss over the past three decades since the Rio Convention is staggering, amounting to an estimated $3. 555 trillion. Ø Climate Change recognized as a fundamental right in India The recognition of the right against climate change by the Indian Supreme Court marks a crucial step towards environmental protection and human rights and therefore is a worthy leap. Climate change rather than depicting a mere environmental challenge poses an existential crisis that demands urgent approach. The recent Supreme Court of India judgment M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 5has created buzz around climate justice in India.

The judgment reads in the right against climate change to protect the rights to life, health, food, water and a healthy environment. It recognizes the collective responsibility to take immediate action and advocates for policies that prioritize both human rights and climate action. crucial step towards environmental protection and human rights and therefore is a worthy leap. Ø Global Jurisprudence What the Supreme Court of India has pronounced is not a novel if one surveys the International Jurisprudence on the subject. The Courts and tribunals across the globe and more recently on

5AIRONLINE 2021 SC 209

9th April, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR] in 16:1 edifying judgement in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland6 has upheld the rights of a Swiss association whose members are all older women concerned about the consequences of global warming on their living condition and health due to insufficiency on the part of Swiss authorities for lack of adequate action to mitigate the effects of Climate Change under the European Convention on Human Rights and more particularly Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). Similarly, in State of Netherland v Urgenda Foundation (2019)7, the Dutch Supreme Court had acknowledged the obligation under their Article 2 (Right to life) and Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life) of Europeon Convention on Human Rights compelling the state to adopt climate policies.

The Dutch government was required by the order to cut greenhouse gas emissions coming from its territory by a minimum of 25% as compared to levels in 1990. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands acknowledged the clear link between human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, highlighting the serious repercussions of a temperature increase of more than 2 degree Celsius, which might endanger human rights and disturb family dynamics. It added that the right to a private and family life extends to environmental issues in which pollution directly impairs these rights, requiring States to take "reasonable measures to protect them"

INDIAN LAW

Human Rights as defined by the PHR Act 1993 means rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of an individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India, i.e. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; The Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

6 ECtHR,Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, no. 53600/20, judgment (Grand

Chamber) of 9 April 2024 7 Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), Urgenda Foundation v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 20 December 2019, No. 19/00135, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006.

In India, Supreme Court has always tried to help the environment through its judgements like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India8, M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors9 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors10 and many more like these. The 42nd constitutional amendment 1976 introduced the principle of environmental protection in an explicit manner into constitution through introduction of Article 48A and Article 51A (g). Article 48A part of the Directive Principle of State Policy provides that “State shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. ” Additionally, Article 51A(g) specifically stipulates the “fundamental duty of the citizens to protect and improve the natural environment which includes forests, rivers, lake wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. ” Under T. N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v.

Union of India & Ors. 11 (1997), The Supreme Court ruled that both the state and its residents have a fundamental duty to preserve and protect their natural resources. The recent judgment obliquely makes way for an enforceable right, and a potential obligation on the state unless the same is overturned by an act of Parliament. India is signatory of various international environmental conservation treaties under which inida has the binding commitment to reduce carbon emission. During the COP 21, India signed Paris Agreement along with 196 countries, under which universally binding agreement was made to limit greenhouse gas emission to levels that would prevent global temperatures from increasing to more than 1. 5 degree Celsius before industrial revolution.

India has committed to generating 50% of its energy through renewable resources and will generate 500 GW of energy from non-fossil fuels by 2030, reducing the carbon emission by 1 billion ton. Additionally, India has committed to achieve net zero carbon emission target by 2070. MK RANJITSINH v UNION OF INDIA(LANDMARK JUDGEMENT IN INDIA) India’s Supreme Court, in M. K. Ranjitsinh and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors12 , has set a precedent in climate change jurisprudence. The landmark judgment establishes the right to ‘be free from the adverse effects of climate change’ as a fundamental right under Articles 21 and

14 of the Constitution. This decision shapes India’s climate policy by influencing governance

8 MANU/SC/0686/1996

9 MANU/SC/1007/1997

10 MANU/SC/0106/1991

11 1997) 2 SCC 267

12 AIRONLINE 2021 SC 209

and legislation, highlighting the judiciary's role in addressing environmental challenges and protecting citizens' rights. SC has held that the people have a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change within the ambit of fundamental rights, according to a judgement uploaded on April 6, 2024. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India guarantee the fundamental rights to equality and life respectively. The right to a clean environment has earlier been recognised as a fundamental right within the ambit of the right to life by the Court in a plethora of decisions. Issue- Balancing the interplay between safeguarding biodiversity by preservation of the Great Indian Bustard and mitigating the impacts of climate change through interpretation of Indian Constitutional Provisions and other legal framework in India and international commitments.

The present case is a writ Petition which was filed to the Supreme Court of India, invoking its jurisdiction and to issue the necessary order to protect two endangered birds, the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican. This petition was in reference the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19th April, 2021 wherein the Supreme Court had ordered that a large part of the territory not be used for overhead transmission lines, gave instructions to convert to underground power lines within a year and appointed a committee to determine whether laying high voltage underground power lines would be feasible. In this case, the petitioners are of the opinion that the existence of overhead cables is a major cause of concern as it poses the biggest threat to the survival of the Great Indian Bustard.

The Power Line Mitigation, 201813report stated that every year 1 lakh birds die because of collision with these power lines and there is an urgent need to reduce the mortality caused by these power lines or else the extinction of Great Indian Bustards is certain. The Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (‘MNRE’) requested a modification of the judgement dated 19th April, 2021, on the grounds that the implementation of the said judgment would cause adverse implications for the power sector and India’s International commitment for energy transition and fulfilment of promise under the Paris agreement signed by India in 2015 under the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change[UNFCC]. In the present case the Apex Court had to decide two major issues i. e.

modification of the directions issued under the earlier judgment dated 19th April, 2019 and to balance the

13 Wildlife Institute of India,2018 Power-Line Mitigation Measures, Second edition(2020)

preservation of Great Indian Bustard and India’s commitment to control climate change through just transition [ shifting from energy from fossil fuels to renewable energy]. The Apex court reviewed the factors causing threats to Great Indian Bustards, the actions taken by the Government of India, specifically the programme ‘Habitat Improvement and Conservation breeding of Great Indian Bustard’ launched in 2016 and other measures. The Court also discussed the impacts of changing climate and India’s commitments and efforts to control it. It was observed that promotion of renewable energy sources is crucial for promoting social equity by ensuring access to clean and affordable energy for all segments of society and thus fostering inclusive growth and development across the nation.

The Court emphasised on the duty on the part of the State under Article 48 A and fundamental duty of citizens under Article 51 A of the constitution of India as constitutional commitments to ensure protection of natural world and compassion for living creatures. Relating these duties to Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution, the Court declared that the right to clean environment and right against the adverse effects of climate change has its source in Article 21 which recognises the right to life and personal liberty and article 14 which indicates equality before law and equal protection of law.

Thus, justifying the actions of the State, the court dealt with intersection between climate change and human rights as well as a novel issue of intricate interface between the conservation of an endangered species, such as the Great Indian Bustard and the imperative of protecting against the climate change.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA 14

In India, legislation to protect the environment is still weak, with different laws existing for each element of the environment. There is lack of centralization in law, anyone involved in litigation on these issues will have to focus only on the element they want to protect, leading to the other elements of the environment being left unchecked, or needing new litigation to address the impact on these elements. These laws against air pollution, forest conservation, and natural resource conservation, being laws of their own, do not take a holistic view of the environment and its impact on society.

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, DELIVERED A LANDMARK

14 Ameya Kelkar, The Indian Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgement on Climate Change: Implications Going

Forward ,Page 3,2024

JUDGEMENT15

In the case of Verein LimnaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland16, establishing a precedent for holding governments accountable for inadequate climate action. The plaintiffs after exhausting all domestic remedies in Switzerland, filed a case against the Swiss government before ECHR, arguing among other things that their health and quality of life were being threatened by the increasing heat waves exacerbated by the climate change. They argued that despite their duties under the European Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”), the Swiss government had failed to take sufficient measures to combat the effects of climate change. The Court, in the instant case, was compelled for the first time to decide whether the insufficient actions of Member States against climate change could lead to the violation of any human rights of citizens.

The Court held that Switzerland's inaction violated Article 8 of the Convention2, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, mandating effective protection by the State authorities against the serious adverse effects of climate change. Specifically, the Court found that the Swiss government's lack of sufficient measures to mitigate climate change threatened the lives, health, well-being and quality of life of its citizens.

The judgment emphasized the duty of states to adopt and implement regulations and measures capable of mitigating the adverse effects of climate change, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with a view of achieving the net-zero emission neutrality principle within the next three decades, in line with their international commitments (most notably the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change17 and the Paris Agreement18). Additionally, on the procedural side, the Court found that Switzerland had also violated the rule of due process as mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention19 concerning the effective implementation of the mitigation measures under existing domestic laws. The Swiss Courts had not provided convincing reasons why they considered it unnecessary to examine the merits of the complaints and had dismissed them on procedural grounds.

According to the Court, the

15 Nishith Desai Associates, EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS LANDMARK CLIMATE CHANGE

JUDGMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON INDIA, Page 1,2024

16 ECtHR,Verein Klima Seniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, no. 53600/20, judgment (Grand

Chamber) of 9 April 2024

17 https://unfccc.int/

18 https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement

19 Article 6 of the Convention: Right to a fair trial

Swiss Courts had failed to provide any convincing reasons as to why they did not consider examining the merits of the complaints filed by the plaintiff and had not taken the association’s complaints seriously. As there had been no further legal avenues or safeguards available to the applicant association, or to individual applicants/members of the association, the Court found that there had also been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The ECHR delivered a ruling in climate change case aimed to make national government meet treaty obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It held that failure of Swiss government to meet the emissions target that did violate their human rights s. The petitioner protested against woefully inadequate efforts to fight against climate change.

It was the first authoritative judgment from a supranational court that directly links human rights violations to insufficient or non-ambitious action on climate change. The Court in its majority view declared that there is a right for individuals to effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of Climate Change on their lives, health, well-being, and quality of life. Court emphasized on the causal relationship between Climate Change and the enjoyment of the Convention rights.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIMATE LITIGATION

The ECHR verdict has far-reaching implications for climate litigation worldwide. By establishing a binding legal precedent for all 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, the ruling empowers citizens and advocacy groups to hold governments accountable for their climate commitments. It sets a benchmark for the level of action expected from States in addressing climate change, potentially leading to increased legal scrutiny and challenges in jurisdictions across the globe. Furthermore, the judgment strengthens the link between environmental protection and human rights, highlighting the inherent connection between a stable climate and the enjoyment of fundamental rights. These cases, both in India and the European Union, are part of a growing trend of nations starting discussions related to mitigating the worst effects of climate change.

In this regard, India is not alone, as all nations, regardless of their economic development, are introducing clauses within their constitution ensure each government takes the problem climate change poses seriously.

This can also be seen within the United Nations, as over 100 member nations of the General Assembly have put forth a case for an advisory opinion before the International Court of Justice. The member states, in their request, have asked the Court to provide an opinion on the obligations each state has, under international law, to protect its natural environment from the spectre of climate change.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the complex challenges posed by climate change requires collaborative efforts at the national, regional, and global levels. India, as a signatory to various international agreements and conventions, must uphold its commitments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and protect the fundamental rights of all individuals to live in a healthy and sustainable environment. Internationally, the judgement in MK Ranjitsinh v Union of India will undoubtedly help strengthen the positions India takes when it comes to the fight against climate change. This judgement is a concrete step taken by India to fulfil its obligations under the Paris Agreement.

Thus, at any international forum on the subject, India has the opportunity to showcase the strength of its judicial system, highlighting the progressive nature of India’s judiciary and the compatibility of international requirements with the domestic laws of any nation. The recognition of climate change as a fundamental right represents a significant stride forward in India’s legal landscape. However, translating this recognition into tangible action requires concerted efforts from policymakers, civil society, and the private sector. By prioritizing environmental protection, promoting sustainable development, and ensuring equitable access to resources, India can pave the way for a more resilient and sustainable future for all its citizens.

As we navigate the challenges posed by climate change, let us remain committed to fostering a world where environmental justice is not just a legal principle but a lived reality for all.

REFERENCES

Ajoy Sinha Karpuram (2024, 26 April). How Supreme Court Is Overseeing Conservation Of The Great Indian Bustard. The Indian Express. Accessed 04/05/2024. https://indianexpress. com/article/explained/explained-law/supreme-courtconservation-great-indian-bustard-9234896/. • Apoorva (2024, 26 April). Why SC’s Recognition Of Right To Be Free From Climate Change Impact Is Cause For Cautious Optimism. in. Accessed 27/04/2024. https://scroll. in/article/1066843/why-scs-recognition-of-right-to-be-freefrom-climate-change-impact-is-cause-for-cautious-optimism. • Climate Change Recognized As ‘Threat Multiplier’, UN Security Council Debates Its Impact On Peace (n. d. ). Commission On Consolidation of Peace. United Nations Organization. Accessed 25/04/2024. https://www. un. org/peacebuilding/fr/news/climate-change-recognized- ‘threat-multiplier’-un-security-council-debates-its-impact-peace.

• COP27: Urgent Need To Respect Human Rights In All Climate Change Action, Say UN Experts (2022, the 04th of November). Office of the High Commissioner – United Nations Human Rights Council. Accessed 04/05/2024. https://www. ohchr. org/en/statements/2022/11/cop27-urgent-needrespect-human-rights-all-climate-change-action-say-un-experts. • Doreen Lustig and Ilil Gabison (2023, 06 December). How Climate Change Jurisprudence Alters Human Rights from Within: Between Distributive Justice and Human Rights Concerns.

SSRN

Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4570187. • Elena Kosolapova (2024, 20 March). ICJ to Rule on States’ Climate-related Obligations: How Did We Get Here? SDG Knowledge Hub. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Accessed 07/05/2024. https://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/policy-briefs/icj-to-rule-on-statesclimate-related-obligations-how-did-we-get-here/.

Karla Toral et al., (2021, 02 December). The 11 Nations Heralding A New Dawn Of Climate Constitutionalism. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Accessed 05/05/2024. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-11-nations-heraldinga-new-dawn-of-climate-constitutionalism/. •

M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2024). Writ Petition (Civil) No.

838. Civil Appeal No 3570. INSC 280. Supreme Court of India. Accessed

15/04/2024. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/20754/20754_2019_1_25_516 77_Judgement_21-Mar-2024.pdf. • Paris Agreement (2015, the 12th of December). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Organization. Accessed 04/05/2024.