In April 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic order in the MK Ranjitsinh & Ors vs Union of India & Ors case, recognising for the first time the fundamental right of people against the adverse impacts of climate change. The recognition of this right marks a significant stride towards achieving India's constitutional promises of social justice, dignity, and freedom. This order was delivered in a petition filed by environmentalists, seeking directions of the court in protecting two endangered species of birds—The Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican. However, even as this order marks history, it throws up some critical tensions between India’s international commitments to mitigating climate change and the need to protect livelihoods of the marginalised while building their resilience to adapt to climate change. Given the number of large-scale renewable energy projects in Karnataka, we explore the ramifications of this order.
In an April 2021 ruling in the same case, the Supreme Court restricted the Gujarat and Rajasthan governments from setting up overhead high-tension wires in the habitat of the two critically endangered species. It stated that overhead lines caused the birds to collide with them and die. To protect the species, the Court ordered that the cables be moved underground. In April 2024, the Supreme Court modified this order as a response to the Government of India’s petition that a blanket order for the cables to be moved underground would impact renewable energy production.
One of the grounds was the argument that renewable energy played a crucial role in promoting social equity. The court attempted to accommodate the use of the critical habitats for renewable energy projects. As noted in the judgement, “the same area in which undergrounding has been directed to be implemented contains the lion’s share of the potential areas from which wind and solar energy may be harnessed. Until now, only 3% of this potential has been tapped.”
The judgement further noted that if this potential remained untapped, the alternatives, coal and thermal power plants would adversely impact the health of local people and the planet. It is critical to note that it is in this context that the court recognises the rights of people against the impacts of climate change. However, in doing so, it seems to conflate climate action with mitigation alone while overlooking the fact that people also have a right to adapt to an already changing environment.
The contentious areas in question are the arid lands of Gujarat and Rajasthan, which are the last remaining habitats of the once common Great Indian Bustard, endemic to the Indian subcontinent. Such lands across the country are often classified as 'wastelands' due to their unsuitability for conventional agriculture or forestry, making them prime candidates for diversion to developmental activities, including large-scale renewable energy projects, notably solar and wind. It sets the stage for a conflict— the imperatives of climate action clash with other goals and, in this case, the conservation of critically endangered species.
In the context of Karnataka, where approximately 77% of the land is similarly arid or semi-arid, and climate change exacerbates aridity, the potential for other conflicts, such as climate mitigation versus livelihood protection, is high.
Historically, communities in these drought-prone regions have relied on livestock rearing, particularly small ruminants, for income and nutritional security. To corroborate from publicly available data, 21 out of 31 districts – which have 98.8% of Karnataka’s solar and wind projects – also contribute 90% of the state’s small ruminant population. This highlights the tension between renewable energy development and existing livelihoods in the region.
For instance, in Challakere taluk of Chitradurga district, 10,000 acres of grazing lands vital to nearly 70 villages were handed over to research institutes, including about 1,000 acres for a solar park, disrupting local sheep rearing and weaving activities. Similarly, in Pavagada in Tumkur district, a solar park occupying 4,000 acres of farmland and grazing lands has failed to translate into dignified employment for locals, disproportionately impacting women and landless labourers. Ironically, those who sold their lands for the park now endure frequent power cuts despite its capacity to supply electricity to millions of homes.
The proliferation of large-scale renewables and other development projects (often with the promise of bringing employment and development to ‘backward regions’) on these perceived wastelands exacerbates the marginalisation of dependent communities by depriving them of their lands and livelihoods. It would be a travesty if these marginalised communities had to bear the brunt of mitigating a crisis they scarcely contribute to. The burden of climate action must fall on those who profit most from environmental exploitation. Prioritising the resilience and rights of the most vulnerable communities should be the cornerstone of India's climate justice efforts. Taking immediate steps towards protecting people from the impacts of climate change they are already confronting would indeed be a radical step towards climate justice.
As Karnataka gears up to implement the State Action Plan for Climate Change (SAPCC), policymakers must adopt a multifaceted approach. Policy frameworks should prioritise building the capacity of marginalised communities to adapt to climate change. This would include, but not be restricted to, preserving commons and wild habitats while empowering panchayats to mitigate and respond to extreme weather events. Enhancing the resilience of dryland communities through targeted interventions, including improving livestock management practices and access to water resources is imperative.
While the Supreme Court's judgement signifies a crucial step towards climate justice, its implementation must prioritise the rights and resilience of marginalised communities. Prioritising large-scale renewables at the cost of common lands and local livelihoods will take us further away from social equity and not towards it. India’s international commitments must not take precedence over building resilience at the local level. By embracing an inclusive approach that balances environmental conservation, climate change mitigation and social justice, India can pave the way for a sustainable and just transition to energy security.
Jahnavi Pai is an environmentalist working on climate change and Vinay K Sreenivasa is a Bengaluru-based advocate. Views expressed here are the authors’ own.