The Supreme Court has raised important concerns about how various Ministries handle environmental issues. The justices noted that these agencies often operate in isolation, which hinders effective climate action and accountability.
During a recent hearing, the Court pointed out that a review of key laws, like the Environment Protection Act of 1986 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, is essential. These laws should be updated to include enforceable climate-related requirements.
The Court also highlighted financial challenges faced by regulatory bodies, such as Pollution Control Boards, which affect their effectiveness. Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra were reviewing a petition from young climate activist Ridhima Pandey. Her petition focuses on the impact of carbon emissions on our environment.
To address the rising carbon emissions, the Supreme Court asked for responses from eight important Union Ministries involved in environmental policies. These include:
- Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
- Ministry of Power
- Ministry of Urban Development
- Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
- Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
- Ministry of Textiles
- Department of Science and Technology
- Ministry of Mines
Justice Narasimha emphasized the need for coordination among these Ministries to combat climate change effectively. The Court pointed out that climate change is not just an environmental issue; it has serious economic and social implications as well. Rising temperatures and unpredictable weather can threaten livelihoods, health, and food security.
India has put frameworks like the National Action Plan on Climate Change and the National Clean Air Programme in place. However, for these policies to work, existing laws need thorough reassessment to integrate climate-focused regulations.
The Court also noted that several regulatory bodies struggle with limited resources and coordination. This lack of support negatively impacts their ability to implement climate actions effectively. For example, the Commission for Air Quality Management has restricted powers, which limits its effectiveness in regulating air quality across regions.
The petition, which originally started in 2017 at the National Green Tribunal, brings attention to severe climate issues facing India, such as glacier melting, rising sea levels, and increasing climate refugees. It stresses the importance of integrating climate commitments, like those in the Paris Agreement, into national policies.
The petitioner argues for a “carbon budget” extending to 2050 to control emissions and for strict climate impact assessments to be mandatory for various projects. This plan aims to ensure that environmental approvals consider broader climate impacts, reducing government discrepancies between international commitments and local actions.
Finally, the petition underscores that vulnerable communities, particularly children, are at greater risk from climate change, highlighting the need for government accountability and action.
Case: Ridhima Pandey vs Union of India | Civil Appeal No(s). 388/2021
Check out this related article: Stay Informed: How to Monitor Changes to Federal Websites as Trump Pushes to Remove ‘Climate’ References
Source linksupreme court, climate action, climate-centric mandates,
