Editorial 1: A moment for just transition litigation to take wing
Introduction
In April 2024, in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India recognised a human right against the adverse impacts of climate change. The recognition had a mixed emotion, for some as a win for climate action and for others, as a failure to protect endangered biodiversity. The core issue in the M.K. Ranjitsinh case — the protection of the Great Indian Bustard in energy projects — can be used to facilitate equitable and inclusive climate action.
History of the concept of ‘Just Transition’
- Workers Job Security: The concept emerged in the 1970s as a tool to protect workers whose jobs were being threatened by increasing environmental regulation as it had a direct impact of decarbonisation due to carbon-intensive economies.
- Paris Agreement: In 2015, it was included in the international treaty on climate change.
- Inclusion on Vulnerable sections: This includes indigenous communities, women, children, and minorities. They are at a higher risk of being adversely affected by decarbonisation. The concept only includes affected human beings.
- Exclusion of Non-Human Environment: Despite its vulnerability to climate change, the non-human environment has not been recognised as a subject of just transition.
Concerns with the M.K. Ranjitsinh case
- The core issue in M.K. Ranjitsinh is the protection of an endangered bird, the Great Indian Bustard, from the adverse impacts of solar and wind energy projects. This is an opportune moment for the Court to frame the issue using just transition and further its conceptual boundaries because:
- Equitable and Inclusive climate action through Just Transition: Decarbonisation and biodiversity protection ‘do not exist in disjunctive silos’, and that one cannot be prioritised at the cost of the other.
- Conservation of The Great Indian Bustard: Is given a lesser priority vis a vis the conservation of the ‘environment as a whole’ (through decarbonisation).
- Environmental Bias: It presents biodiversity protection as a smaller public interest in comparison to the larger public interest of decarbonising the economy.
Judiciary’s approach on environmental issues over the years
- Public Interest: Various courts have labelled decarbonisation as being the larger public benefit, while the affected plaintiff’s interest being the smaller public benefit.
- Just transition framing: It will preclude such inequitable and exclusionary climate action, allowing courts to strengthen decarbonisation efforts, while accounting for and protecting interests of affected communities and entities.
- Mitigation action: It ensures that the burdens of decarbonisation are not disproportionately distributed.
Courts should take a froward step towards Just Transition Litigation Concept
- Holistic approach: While determining the feasibility of undergrounding power transmission lines, the Court can treat protection of the Great Indian Bustard as a guiding factor and need not to be treated as adversarial to decarbonisation paving way for equitable and inclusive climate action.
- Avoiding ‘anti-energy transition’ or ‘anti-climate’: It will not translate into decommissioning renewable energy projects. Determining the feasibility of placing power transmission lines underground.
- Responsible and informed operation of renewable energy projects: By not decommissioning them.
- Not being anti-climate: Case will help unleash a the new category of climate litigation emerging globally, i.e., litigation which is pro-just climate action.
- Expand the concept of just transition: By courts through introducing the non-human environment as an affected entity. This concept can be applied to protect an endangered bird, and the non-human environment can be introduced as a separate entity in just transition.
- Rights of nature: In 2023, court suggested the recognition of the rights of sentient animals by the legislature. This is in addition to the copious jurisprudence from subordinate courts where constitutional rights of entire ecosystems have been recognised.
- Just transition climate research: The case will enthuse experts on focusing on mapping just transition litigation in different regions of the world. Introducing the concept, could act as a catalyst for this much-needed research and it could facilitate relevant research geared towards filling the gap in our collective knowledge about just transition litigation.
Way Forward: A beacon for the future
With an increasing number of countries attempting to move towards net-zero, just transition litigation is bound to rise. Land Conflict Watch has reported 20 ongoing disputes with respect to renewable energy projects in India. Equitable sharing of burdens and benefits arising from decarbonisation is central to most of these disputes. Thus, this is a watershed moment for introducing the concept of just transition in India. Should the Court choose to do so now, it will pave the way for equitable climate action, whether taken through law or litigation.
Editorial 2: Guilty on search: on the antitrust case verdict against Google
Introduction
The antitrust ruling against Microsoft reshaped the business landscape of tech industry. A landmark judgment by the ‘U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Google ‘over its anti-competitive practices could now lead to a new precedent on how Big Tech firms conduct their business affairs.
Cases filed against Google for using its dominant position
- The roughly three-year-long legal process — which began with the discovery procedure in January 2021 after the court consolidated two lawsuits.
- United States vs Google and Colorado vs Google, that led to a nine-week bench trial in September 2023 — concluded on August 5.
- U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia, Amit P. Mehta, stated that “Google is a monopolist” and that it has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by stifling competition to protect its monopoly position.
- The search giant was accused of using its dominant position in the online search market by cutting exclusive deals with smartphone makers such as Apple and Samsung so that they can pre-load Google search on their handsets as a default search engine.
Google’s Plan of Action
- While Google plans to appeal the ruling, the U.S. Department of Justice has not yet indicated the remedy, both the parties have been asked to deliberate on the same:
- Possible Remedies: Could range anywhere from breaking up Google to eliminating exclusive agreements between the search giant and handset makers.
- Breaking up Google: Could change the structure and nature of digital businesses as Google is linked to a range of digital services.
- Eliminating Agreements: Could immediately wipe out a revenue stream for handset makers; particularly Apple which may end up losing billions of dollars if Google is ordered to terminate its exclusive deal.
- Disincentivising businesses: This hefty annual payment disincentivises firms such as Apple and Samsung from building their own rival search engines.
- Consumer Benefits: Terminating such deals can help consumers find alternative search engines as opposed to getting one pre-loaded in their smartphones.
Conclusion
Time will dictate the he effectiveness of these alternative search engines, as scale and the amount of data that goes into them will play a key role in optimising them for richer user experiences. Also, these changes could make Google build a better product that is focused on user privacy. This ruling will have a huge impact on a series of antitrust cases that are underway against Big Tech firms such as Meta, Amazon, and Apple for their monopolistic business practices. Tech firms must work out a sustainable approach and balance their interest with the customer.
