Towards Ecological Equity - Navigating The Legal Terrain Of Climate Change And Rights

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Environmental Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:34:47.335Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:05:18.918Z

TOWARDS ECOLOGICAL EQUITY: NAVIGATING THE

LEGAL TERRAIN OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND RIGHTS

Harshit Aggarwal1 & Suhani Jain2

ABSTRACT

In the era of economic and technological modernisation, climate change has emerged as a significant issue globally. Soaring temperatures, increased natural disasters and melting glaciers are some of the effects of climate change that are widely known to negatively affect the environment and mankind. It has long been recognized that a clean, healthy, and functional environment is integral to the enjoyment of human rights, such as the rights to life, health, food and an adequate standard of living. 3 Climate change poses a great threat to the enjoyment of human as well as non-human rights which is a contemporary matter of concern. Additionally, the disproportionate vulnerability to climate change, disparity in adapting to climate change, and unequal access to key resources essential for sustaining life among different communities further violate human rights.

Given its adverse impacts, sincere efforts are being made towards climate change mitigation such as shifting to renewable sources of energy among other ingenious techniques. However, it is a point of contention in the instant case highlighted in this article that these efforts are not sustainable as they pose a hazard to one of the fundamental components of nature. Something as basic and primitive to the sustenance of the biosphere cannot come at the expense of biodiversity protection and therefore a just transition framework is required to mitigate climate change and make a transition to a low-carbon economy in an equitable and socially inclusive way, keeping in mind the interests of those who are affected the most by such transitions. Keywords: Climate Change, Human rights, Non-human rights, Biodiversity protection, Just transition framework.

1 2nd year student, B.A. LL.B (Hons.), Integrated Law Course, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

2 2nd year student, B.B.A. LL.B (Hons.), Integrated Law Course, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

3 Michael Burger (Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law) & Jessica Wentz (Associate Director and Climate Law Fellow at the Sabin Center), Climate Change and Human Rights, U.N. Doc 15- 03762/100 (Dec. 2015).

INTRODUCTION

The recognition of the fundamental right against adverse impacts of climate change by the Supreme Court of India in the case of M. K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 4 highlights the growing impact of climate change on life. The court recognised this inalienable right of every individual under the ambit of Article 145 and Article 216 of the Indian Constitution stating that climate change threatens the right to a clean environment within the ambit of Article 21. Delving further into the facts of this case, it serves as a constant reminder about the delicate balance between the environment and the law, both of which build the fabric of life. What is noteworthy is that the court solely recognised this right without further articulating it primarily since this discourse stands at a nascent stage among other plausible reasons.

Further, this case also features the possibility of acknowledging non-human rights and whether these rights are complementary to the one mentioned above or not. This crossroad leads to the need to develop a just transition framework inculcating a sense of equitable and inclusive effort to meet climate goals. This path to climate change mitigation however is severed by challenges of disproportionate vulnerability of certain strata of the society to the impact of climate change ultimately diverting it to the concept of climate justice but the potential articulation of the above-mentioned right finds strength in recent European Court of Human Rights ruling that not taking sufficient steps to mitigate climate change is a violation of human rights, as seen in Switzerland.

Of the existing just transition litigations globally, only a handful of cases centre around protecting the interests of non-humans. Thus, the present case will be a frontrunner in such litigation. Theoretically, it will contribute to expanding the concept of a just transition to consider more than human interests. Although the framework aims at being an inclusive approach to change, the fact that non-human rights are an underrepresented and unchartered territory in the legal arena, it becomes hyperbolic to assert that the just transition framework would be adequate. The impacts of climate change vary greatly between countries and population groups. This climate crisis is a deeply unfair one, with the poor being disproportionately affected. The countries with the fewest resources are likely to bear the greatest burden in terms of loss of life

4 M K Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570.

5 INDIA CONST. art. 14.

6 INDIA CONST. art. 21.

and relative effect on investment and the economy. Individuals are often disproportionately impacted by climate change, especially in low-income countries where they may be more susceptible to harm due to poverty, lack of education, and limited decision-making power. This disproportionate vulnerability to climate change is detrimental to the protection of human rights. This article aims to recognise a comprehensive framework encompassing the multifaceted relationship between climate change, biodiversity conservation, and legal mechanisms. It also suggests a holistic approach to understanding and addressing the challenges posed by environmental degradation particularly climate change at both a national and global stage. THE GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD CASE: The Indian environmental jurisprudence has come a long way since certain landmark judgments such as the M. C.

Mehta’s case among others and the Great India Bustard case can be reasonably foreseen to be another mark on this flourishing landscape. With the verdict of the Supreme Court, this case served to be a great opportunity for the apex court to recognise the right against the adverse impacts of climate change tracing its roots to Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The States of Rajasthan and Gujarat are home to the Great Indian Bustard, an avian species declared critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. But at the same time, it is a well-known fact that both these States also hold significant potential for the development of solar and wind power.

In 2019, a public interest litigation was filed, seeking the conservation of the bustard from the threat posed by the solar and wind energy infrastructure, particularly the overhead power transmission lines. It was argued that these power lines were a hazard, causing the bustards to die due to frequent collisions with the lines. In its decision in 2021, the Supreme Court imposed a blanket ban on the laying of overhead power lines in an area of 99,000 square kilometres; this included areas that were identified as a priority and potential areas for bustard conservation with the help of an expert committee constituted by the court. The Court also passed an order for installing bird diverters in areas where overhead lines are pre-installed and for undergrounding existing power lines, both high and low voltage.

7 The government challenged this order citing India’s international climate commitments on transitioning to non-fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions. It argued that the blanket ban was issued for an area much larger than the actual area in which the bustard dwells. This area, it reiterated, held a major proportion of the country’s wind and solar energy potential. Further, it argued that undergrounding power lines was practically impossible. Lastly, it attributed the decline in the bustard population to other factors such as poaching, habitat destruction, and predation. 8 In its decision on March 21, 2024, the Court modified the earlier order, removing the blanket prohibition on transmission lines.

It felt the need for suggestions from scientific experts and for that purpose, it has constituted a seven-member expert committee to examine the practicality of undergrounding power lines and ways to balance the objective of bustard conservation and realising solar and wind power potential in these areas. SAFEGUARDING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: The very concept of fundamental rights includes the word fundament meaning something very innate to the overall being and development of an individual. In the Indian Constitution, Part III guarantees these rights to citizens and non-citizens and time and again Articles 14 and 21 have proved to be the cornerstone of enlarging the scope of these rights. Yet again while dealing with one of the globally sought-after issues of climate change, the right to equality and the right to life has come into play.

The Apex Court used this case as an opportunity to recognise the fundamental right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change. However, it has restrained itself from articulating this right any further. The court began by explaining the threat posed by the impacts of climate change on the enjoyment of the right to life. Thereafter, it highlighted that disproportionate vulnerability to these impacts threatens the affected persons’ right to equality. Concluding this discussion, the Court found that the source of the right is in a conjunctive reading of judicial jurisprudence on Articles 21 and 14; India’s climate change 7 Kanika Jamwal, Editorial, The Great Indian Bustard and climate action verdict, THE HINDU (Delhi), Apr. 18, 2024, at 8.

8 Id.

action and international commitments, and, the scientific consensus on the adverse impacts of climate change. 9 Without a clean environment that is stable and non-impacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life cannot be realised in its entirety. Article 4710 of Part IV of the Indian constitution expressly states that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties; earlier this provision was solely recognised as a part of the DPSP but due to the multi-dimensional understanding of Article 21, the right to health has been recognised as an essential part of the right to life. The Supreme Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre and others v.

Union of India and others11 held that the right to health, and medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post-retirement is a fundamental right under Article

21. Various other cases in the legal fraternity have thus established the right to health as a

fundamental right. This right is impacted due to the rise in temperature due to GHG emissions, which has induced heat stress and caused bodily dysfunction and even deaths. 12 Unreliable water availability, which is sensitive to climate change, also increases an individual’s risk of exposure to vector-borne and water-borne diseases, especially for vulnerable populations in water-scarce regions. 13 The gradual degradation of the environment caused by climate change will ultimately affect the availability of clean air, water, food and other essential resources that are fundamental to the enjoyment of the right to life. The inability of underserved communities to adapt to climate change or cope with its effects violates the right to life as well as the right to equality.

It is known that climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water shortages due to which poorer communities suffer way more than their richer counterparts. Therefore there is no iota of doubt that the right to equality would be compromised in each of these instances. The right to equality may also be violated in ways that are substantially difficult to be remedied. For example, a person living in the Lakshadweep Islands will be in a disadvantageous position compared to a person living in the mainland state such as Madhya Pradesh when sea levels rise 9 Sanjay Notani & Naghm Ghei, Editorial, Climate vs Conservation, THE HINDU BUSINESS LINE (Chennai), Apr. 18, 2024, at 7.

10 INDIA CONST. art. 47.

11 Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42.

12 Chuan-Feng Wu, Challenges to Protecting the Right to Health under the Climate Change Regime 23 HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS JOURNAL 121, 124 (2021).

13 Id.

and oceanic problems ensue. Similarly, forest dwellers or tribal and indigenous communities are at a high risk of losing not only their homes but also their culture, which is inextricably intertwined with the places they live in and the resources of that place. In India, the tribal population in the Nicobar Islands continues to lead a traditional life that is unconnected to and separate from any other part of the country or world. Indigenous communities often lead traditional lives, whose dependence on the land is different from the dependence that urban populations have on the land. Traditional activities such as fishing and hunting may be impacted by climate change, affecting the source of sustenance for such people. 14 Indigenous people are especially vulnerable to the adverse consequences of climate change, in part because their lives are closely tied to the natural environment.

Environmental consequences of climate change can affect the physical well-being of Indigenous people, such as their ability to obtain adequate food, water, and shelter, but also their spiritual well-being, in part because the land is often an integral part of their culture and spiritual identity. 15 It may result in a permanent loss of their unique culture. This can be viewed as a violation of Article 2916 of the Indian Constitution which provides that any section of the citizens residing in any part of India having a distinct language, script or culture of its own, shall have the right to conserve the same. Due to the adverse and disproportionate effects of climate change, this right of cultural protection vested with the Indigenous communities is directly in peril as they are robbed of the means and opportunity to do the needful. BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION V.

CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION: It is a common occurrence that a choice has to be made between the good and bad; however, there are certain times when a choice has to be made between two virtuous causes. Given the fast pace of environmental degradation, loss of natural habitats and detrimental effects of climate change, sincere efforts and collective conscience towards biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation are being primarily focused upon. On the face of it, climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection appear to be adversarial choices where actions towards achieving one tend to negatively impact the other. The

14 M K Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570.

15 Barry S. Levy, Jonathan A. Patz, Climate Change, Human Rights, and Social Justice, 81 ANNALS OF GLOBAL HEALTH 310, 314 (2015).

16 INDIA CONST. art. 29.

government's actions and responses to climate change also determine the level of impact on biodiversity. This is true for actions undertaken to mitigate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change, as well as projects undertaken to adapt to the impacts of climate change. 17 One of the primary examples of a clash between biodiversity and climate change mitigation techniques is hydroelectric power projects which destroy nearby aquatic ecosystems. However, to achieve sustainable development, it is necessary to create a balance between them emphasising the interests of humans and non-humans. In the present case, the court faces the issue of prioritising solar power generation or protecting the endangered great Indian bustard. The dilemma here involves a nuanced interplay between safeguarding biodiversity and mitigating the impact of climate change.

It is not a binary choice between conservation and development but rather a dynamic interplay between protecting a critically endangered species and addressing the pressing global challenge of climate change. 18 Rajasthan and Gujarat in addition to being home to Great Indian Bustards, serve as prime areas for realising solar energy potential in India. India is committed to various international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol linked to UNFCCC, and COP 21 (Paris Agreement) under which it is obligated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing its capacity to produce power from renewable sources of energy to mitigate climate change. In addition to the international agreements, India has set a goal of achieving 450 GW of installed renewable energy capacity.

Therefore, the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court imposing a blanket ban on the laying of overhead power lines in an area of 99,000 square kilometres was a huge setback in the process of achieving such aims. The court’s decision to modify the earlier judgement and constitute a committee for scientific examination of the situation is a more balanced and inclusive approach giving equal importance to conservation and mitigation. With the final judgement still pending, the court seems to be on the right track regarding this contentious issue. JUST TRANSITION FRAMEWORK: The adverse effects of climate change on the environment and human rights have made the very thought of sticking to conventional sources of energy unconscionable given that these

17 supra note 3, at 8.

18 Sudhir Mishra, Environment vs Environment

Judiciary walks a tightrope, BAR AND BENCH (April 11, 2024), https://www. barandbench. com/law-firms/view-point/environment-vs-environment-judiciary-walks-a-tightrope. sources account for the majority of the carbon emissions ultimately accelerating the effects of climate change globally. A transition towards renewable sources of energy and a low-carbon economy is the need of the hour. However, this transition has to be done without undermining the rights of the individuals. In 2021, ‘A Just Transition Declaration’ was signed at COP 26 (Glasgow), recognising the importance of implementing the just transition framework internationally to achieve the objectives of green growth and a transition to a net zero economy. In the Indian context, developing a just transition framework would be essential to meet its green energy goals.

It envisions an equitable and inclusive socio-economic development process aligned with the goals of achieving net zero emissions, building a green economy, ensuring energy security and access, securing livelihoods, eradicating poverty, building resilient communities, and ensuring social equity. The skeleton of this framework is constructed upon the simple rationale that when the effects of climate change are disproportionate, the impacts of mitigation techniques are also not equally distributed and thus it is imperative that a framework is put in place to enable the true fruition of climate change mitigation and transition. It provides the scope of engaging the vulnerable population in decision-making related to the transition plan and its implementation is sensitive to the issues of gender and marginalised communities.

19 Some of the ways in which this framework can be implemented may include the reallocation of resources previously engaged with harnessing energy from conventional sources to other alternatives; these resources must be allocated both at the central and state levels to ensure efficiency according to the quantum of transition aimed at. Furthermore, reskilling and reemployment opportunities for workers in both formal and informal sectors must be provided. Investment to improve the social and physical infrastructure of impacted regions and ensure energy access in such regions is also a prerequisite. Social dialogues and inclusive decisionmaking should be promoted to assess the perspectives of the communities at the ground level. Therefore, civil society organisations, think tanks and impact assessment organisations will be critical to this process.

20 19CHANDRA BHUSHAN & SRESTHA BANERJEE, JUST TRANSITION FRAMEWORK FOR INDIA: POLICIES, PLANS AND INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS 116 (iFOREST 2023).

20 Sarthak Shukla, Implementing ‘Just Transition’ in India – The Framework and Methodological

Considerations, VASUDHA FOUNDATIONS (May 17, 2023), https://www.vasudha-foundation.org/implementingjust-transition-in-indiathe-framework-and-methodological-considerations/.

Apart from the potential benefits of the just transition framework as predicted by various international organisations as well, one contention that could arise keeping in mind the current case at hand is whether the just transition framework would be a blanket measure to accommodate the rights of non-humans as well who are facing the brunt of the technology advanced developments to mitigate climate change. According to the latest known practices, the rights of non-humans remain underrepresented but with certain amendments, this factor can be incorporated in such a framework.

The legal experts are of the view that this approach should be actively advocated for by the judiciary as it would lead to a harmonious blend and balance between the interests of the vulnerable stakeholders of a noble cause and the global efforts to build a sustainable future with fewer traces of climate change damage. All in all, it would enable the major stakeholders, that is the government, to create a safe space for protecting underrepresented interests (in the instant case, of the bustard) being threatened by slow carbon transition projects (in this case, solar energy). 21 ARTICULATING THE RIGHTS OF NON-HUMANS: Concerning the impact of climate change, the focus has always revolved around the interests of humans, however, non-humans are no exception to the harmful effects of climate change.

As much as there is a clear violation of the rights of human beings, so is the case with nonhumans. Climate change leads to the disruption of ecosystems both terrestrial and marine which results in the loss of habitat of various species thereby threatening their survival by increasing the chances of extinction of vulnerable species. Another important aspect of the whole process is to consider the rights of non-humans while promoting climate change mitigation and sustainable development. Climate change mitigation techniques that involve installing renewable energy again clash with the interests of nonhumans as can be seen in the instant case, in which the life of the Great Indian Bustard is being threatened due to the solar power lines.

Given the inevitable need to transition into a lowcarbon economy, the implementation of mitigation measures cannot be halted; however, it is essential to be naturally inclusive and responsible towards non-human entities during this transition. In such a situation, the articulation of non-human rights does become a point to be considered; however, the problem lies in the fact that rights were fundamentally developed to

21 JAMWAL, supra note 7.

protect the dignity of human beings due to which there are inherent limitations in extending these legal rights to non-human entities. 22 In the case of Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja and Others23, the Supreme Court of India made some important observations about the rights of non-human entities. It observed that every species on Earth has an inherent right to live and be protected by law. Furthermore, it expressed that animals also have honour and dignity and they cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their rights. Shifting away from the anthropocentric approach which upholds the belief that only humans possess intrinsic value, the court recognised the intrinsic value of nature.

Although this case did not declare legal personality to non-humans, it acted as a predecessor to cases wherein the High courts of Uttarakhand, Punjab and Haryana granted legal personality to natural entities like rivers and animals. However, granting such legal rights and imposing liabilities and duties on natural entities create a new set of problems wherein the people would be able to sue natural entities which would create chaos in courts. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha and Others24, the Supreme Court invoked the ‘seventh generation’ sustainability principle which requires all decision-making to keep in mind the interests of those who will arrive seven generations down the line. 25 Even if it is not feasible to give rights to non-humans then it must be at least taken into account that the impact on these entities is also mitigated.

Thus, the focus should be on developing respect towards nature, holding people responsible for their duty towards nature, and incorporating the interests of such entities while adhering to the transition. This is widely recognised as an ecocentric approach, a broader approach to viewing all beings as having an intrinsic value. In the case of Centre for Environment Law, WWFI v. Union of India26, due importance was accorded to all species of animals, especially the Asiatic wild lion which is an endangered species, irrespective of the fact that they were instrumental for human survival or not. Various other judgments over time have marked a gradual shift from the absolute anthropocentric approach to an ecocentric one. 22 Stellina Jolly, ‘Rights of Nature’ Is a Faux Rights Revolution Entangled in Anthropocentrism, SCIENCE THE WIRE (July 21, 2023), https://science. thewire.

in/law/rights-of-nature-anthropocentrism/.

23 Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) 7 SCC 547.

24 Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha (2022) 13 SCC 401.

25 JOLLY, supra note 22.

26 Centre for Environment Law, WWFI v. Union of India (2013) 8 SCC 234.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:

Climate change litigation, as defined by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, involves legal cases that question laws, policies, or facts related to climate change mitigation, adaptation, and science. These cases are presented before judicial or quasi-judicial bodies and allow individuals to hold governments and private sector entities accountable for not meeting climate goals.27 A recent and significant environmental victory can be witnessed in the case of Held vs.

Montana28, wherein the youth raised their voice and claimed that the government infringed on their fundamental right to a clean environment and stable climate, making it the first constitutional climate lawsuit in the U. S. to go to trial. The case sought to strike down a provision called the ‘MEPA Limitation’ that prevented courts and agencies from considering the climate impacts of proposed projects. The court in its decision acknowledged the fact that the reality of global warming is caused by “anthropogenic changes in the environment, not natural variability,”29 and reviewed how climate change is affecting the state of Montana. It was also recognised how this ill-thought-of provision directly affects the plaintiffs’ very existence on the planet and the quantum of difficulties that could be faced.

Although the case deals with a micro aspect of climate change litigation circumventing an issue posed by specific legislation, it holds the potential to be a shining model for future suits. In another recent judgement of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland30 delivered on April 9, the ECHR has set a new vital precedent concluding that Switzerland is not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change. The failure of the Swiss government was viewed as a clear violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights31 which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life.

The Court emphasised the need for prompt action from the governments as they have the primary responsibility to develop and implement suitable policies, enter into international agreements, invest in R&D 27 Laura Elizondo, Just Transition Litigation: What Is It and How Can it Help Achieve a More Just Society? , EARTH ORG (Nov. 27, 2023), https://earth. org/just-transition-litigation-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-help-achieve-amore-justsociety/.

28 Rikki Held v. State of Montana CDV-2020-307.

29 Sam Bookman, Held v. Montana

A Win for Young Climate Advocates and What It Means for Future Litigation, ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY LAW PROGRAM (Aug. 30, 2023), https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2023/08/held-v-montana/.

30 Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland MANU/INOT/0001/2024.

31 European Convention on Human Rights art. 8.

and innovation in technologies that mitigate climate change, and most importantly foster public awareness about climate change. The ruling does not prescribe remedies beyond these requirements. Implementation is left to domestic courts and legislators, as ‘better placed to assess the specific measures to be taken’. 32 Both these cases highlight the growing consciousness of the global population on the burning topic of climate change and its impact on their rights. Such climate change litigations can be a guiding light in expanding the scope of Indian environmental jurisprudence as well apart from inducing a spirit of collective action not only from the common people but also from the States.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Climate change presents not just a global crisis, but a legal imperative. The courts as guardians of justice must intricately weave the environment into the fabric of law, ensuring that our planet’s health is upheld as an intrinsic right, non-negotiable, and preserved for generations to come. After analysing the situation of climate change litigation and the recent right so realised the authors are of the firm view that the right to be free from adverse effects of climate change that has just been acknowledged must be articulated further by the Supreme Court in further cases. Such a right cannot exist in isolation and thus a foundationally concrete but flexible dimension should be attributed to the same.

When the concept of a concrete dimension is being referred to, it shall include a practical assessment of the possible ill effects of climate change on the lives of both human and non-human entities and then accordingly building a just framework to mitigate these impacts. The present scenario provides for a confined interpretation of environmental jurisprudence concerning climate change and thus the same must be strived to be expanded by the interaction of the judiciary and the legislature. On the other hand, when the subject of non-human rights is being considered, it is observed that the Indian courts have been reluctant to award legal status to these entities thereby not conferring them with the fundamental right in question. Although this decision is substantiated by valid challenges related to enforcement, a general duty of care must be established for all.

32 Bhargabi Bharadaj, A new European Court of Human Rights ruling has established a vital new precedent, CHATHAM HOUSE (April 18, 2024), https://www. chathamhouse. org/2024/04/new-european-court-human-rightsruling-has-established-vital-new-precedent.

All in all, establishing an equilibrium between developmental progress and the exercise of rights is what we should aim for. Violation of rights is not something to be entertained for social and economic development. Following a just transition framework that is socially inclusive and equitable for all communities is the key moving ahead while balancing the effects of climate change.

CONCLUSION

Amidst the growing tussle between climate change and enjoyment of rights, the clock is ticking and it is a matter of time before the golden chance to take effective action to mitigate the impact of climate change is lost. Unless we strengthen the legal framework for mitigating climate change, the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change will become a hollow promise for future generations. Quoting the wise words of Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo of Ghana, “The environment, for all its complexity, cannot be approached as a collection of separate concerns. Recognition of the right to a healthy environment is a necessary step towards ensuring a future where both humanity and nature can thrive. ” It takes a revolution to arrive at a solution and the very first step is to have a mental revolution.

Climate change to a large extent is a product of reckless human behaviour and before this cyclic pattern leads to irreparable damage, the repair must gain momentum at a micro level. We, as individuals, too have certain responsibilities towards this noble cause and must act as a functional part of this machinery. The urgency of climate change mitigation must be addressed, however, it must not come at the expense of fundamental human rights or compromising the principles of a just transition. Moreover, biodiversity conservation is not only an ecological necessity but also a legal obligation to ensure the survival and well-being of non-human entities. The rights of nonhumans, an emerging area of jurisprudence, further underscores the need for a holistic and inclusive approach to environmental law.

As we navigate these multifaceted issues, our legal frameworks must adapt to reflect this complexity, balancing the needs of the present with the responsibilities towards future generations. This will require innovative legal thinking, robust international cooperation, and a steadfast commitment to justice and sustainability. Ultimately, the law must serve as a catalyst for a more equitable, resilient, and sustainable world.