A Moment for Just Transition Litigation to Take Wing

Introduction

In April 2024, the Supreme Court of India recognized a human right against the adverse impacts of climate change in the M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others vs Union of India case.
The ruling received mixed reactions, viewed by some as a victory for climate action and by others as a failure to protect endangered biodiversity.
The central issue involved the protection of the Great Indian Bustard in energy projects, which has implications for equitable and inclusive climate action.

History of the Concept of ‘Just Transition’

Initially developed as a tool to protect workers whose jobs were at risk due to environmental regulations, particularly in carbon-intensive economies.
The concept became part of the international climate change treaty, focusing on ensuring a fair transition to a low-carbon economy.
Just transition includes protections for vulnerable groups like indigenous communities, women, children, and minorities, who are at higher risk of being adversely affected by decarbonization.
Despite its vulnerability to climate change, the non-human environment has not been recognized as a subject of just transition, limiting the scope of protection.

Concerns with the M.K. Ranjitsinh Case

The protection of the endangered Great Indian Bustard from solar and wind energy projects could have been an opportunity to expand the concept of just transition.
Decarbonization and biodiversity protection should not be seen as mutually exclusive; both should be prioritized.
The case highlights how conservation of the Great Indian Bustard was given lesser priority compared to the broader goal of decarbonization.
The judiciary’s framing presented biodiversity protection as a smaller public interest compared to the larger public interest of economic decarbonization.

Judiciary’s Approach on Environmental Issues

Courts have often labeled decarbonization as the larger public benefit, with the interests of affected parties being considered smaller public benefits.
Incorporating just transition in judicial decisions could prevent inequitable and exclusionary climate actions by balancing decarbonization with the protection of affected communities and entities.
Ensuring that the burdens of decarbonization are not disproportionately distributed is a crucial aspect of just transition.

Courts Should Embrace the Just Transition Litigation Concept

The Supreme Court could use the protection of the Great Indian Bustard as a guiding factor, rather than treating it as adversarial to decarbonization. This would support equitable and inclusive climate action.
Determining the feasibility of placing power transmission lines underground, rather than decommissioning renewable energy projects, would demonstrate responsible and informed operation without being anti-climate.
Courts should introduce the non-human environment as an affected entity in just transition, thereby broadening the concept to protect endangered species like the Great Indian Bustard.
Building on 2023 jurisprudence that suggested recognizing the rights of sentient animals and constitutional rights of ecosystems, this case could further establish legal protections for the non-human environment.
The case could inspire experts to map just transition litigation globally, addressing gaps in knowledge and facilitating relevant research.

Way Forward:

As more countries move towards net-zero goals, just transition litigation is likely to increase.
Land Conflict Watch reports 20 ongoing disputes related to renewable energy projects in India, many of which center around equitable sharing of burdens and benefits from decarbonization.
Introducing the concept of just transition in Indian law could pave the way for equitable climate action, whether through legislation or litigation, making this a crucial moment for change.

Guilty on discovery: On the court verdict against Google

Introduction

The court verdict against Microsoft reshaped the business landscape of the tech industry. A landmark verdict by the US District Court for the District of Columbia against Google for its ‘anti-competitive practices’ has now set a new precedent on how big tech firms conduct their business affairs.

Cases filed against Google

The nearly three-year-long legal process – which began with the discovery process in January 2021, when the court consolidated the two lawsuits.
United States v. Google and Colorado v. Google, which culminates in a nine-week bench trial in September 2023 – ended on August 5. US District Judge for the District of Columbia, Amit P. Mehta, said that “Google is a monopoly” and that it had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to protect its monopoly position.
The search giant was accused of using its dominant position in the online search market by entering into exclusive deals with smartphone makers such as Apple and Samsung so that they could preload Google Search as the default search engine on their handsets.

Google’s plan of action

While Google plans to appeal the verdict, the US Justice Department has not yet revealed any remedies it has asked both sides to consider:

Possible remedies: Could range anywhere from breaking up Google to ending exclusive agreements between the search giant and handset makers.
Breaking up Google: Could change the structure and nature of digital businesses as Google is tied to various digital services.
Ending agreements: Could immediately wipe out the revenue stream for handset makers; especially Apple which could lose billions of dollars if Google is ordered to end its exclusive deal.
Discouraging businesses: This hefty annual payment discourages firms such as Apple and Samsung from creating their own rival search engines.
Consumer benefits: Ending such deals can help consumers find alternative search engines, as opposed to having one preloaded on their smartphone.

Conclusion

Time will decide the effectiveness of these alternative search engines, as the scale and the amount of data that goes into them will play a key role in optimizing them for rich user experiences.
Also, these changes can make Google a better product that focuses on user privacy.
This decision will have a huge impact on the many ongoing court cases against big tech firms such as Meta, Amazon and Apple for their monopolistic business practices. Tech firms will have to take a sustainable approach and balance their interest with the customer.