1. Introduction

The energy transition refers to the transformation of an energy system from one predominantly dependent on fossil fuels toward a system based increasingly on renewable energy, energy efficiency, electrification, storage, hydrogen and other low-carbon technologies. Traditionally, energy transition has been approached primarily as a matter of economic policy, energy security and environmental regulation. A rights-based approach, however, treats the transition as a matter of constitutional, human and environmental rights.

Under this approach, governments and private actors must consider not merely whether an energy project reduces carbon emissions, but also whose rights are affected, who bears the costs, who receives the benefits, and whether affected communities participate meaningfully in decision-making.

The principal rights implicated include:

right to life and health;

right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment;

equality and non-discrimination;

access to energy and basic services;

property and livelihood rights;

rights of indigenous and local communities;

procedural rights to information, participation and access to justice;

rights of children and future generations.

The approach therefore seeks to make the energy transition climate-responsive as well as socially and constitutionally legitimate.

2. Meaning of a Rights-Based Energy Transition

A rights-based energy transition incorporates human-rights principles into energy and climate policymaking. It requires governments to pursue decarbonisation while respecting the dignity and legal interests of individuals and communities.

There are generally four dimensions:

A. Substantive rights

Energy policies must protect fundamental rights such as life, health, livelihood, equality and environmental quality.

B. Procedural rights

People affected by energy projects should have access to:

environmental information;

meaningful consultation;

participation in decision-making;

administrative and judicial remedies.

C. Equality and distributive justice

The costs and benefits of transition should not disproportionately fall upon poorer or vulnerable populations.

For example, closing coal mines may produce climate benefits but can simultaneously affect workers, mining communities and local economies. A rights-based transition therefore requires appropriate rehabilitation, alternative employment and social protection.

D. Intergenerational justice

Energy decisions made today affect future generations. A rights-based approach consequently requires governments to consider long-term environmental consequences rather than focusing exclusively on immediate economic benefits.

3. Right to Life and Energy Transition

The right to life is one of the strongest constitutional foundations for rights-based energy transition.

In India, Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted expansively to include environmental quality, health and conditions necessary for a dignified life.

The Supreme Court's decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) is particularly significant. The Court recognised that Articles 14 and 21 provide constitutional foundations for a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. It explained that climate change can affect health, food, water and vulnerable communities and that poorer communities may experience these effects more severely. (Indian Kanoon)

This has important implications for energy law. Fossil-fuel dependence can contribute to air pollution and climate-related risks, while poorly planned renewable-energy projects can also affect land, livelihoods and biodiversity.

Therefore, a rights-based transition requires the State to consider the whole rights impact of energy choices.

4. Right to a Healthy Environment

A clean and healthy environment is increasingly recognised as an essential component of human rights.

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court developed Article 21 environmental jurisprudence by treating environmental protection as closely connected with the right to life. This jurisprudence supports the proposition that environmental degradation affecting human health and dignity can raise constitutional concerns.

In M.K. Ranjitsinh, the Supreme Court expressly connected environmental stability with Article 21 and observed that without a clean environment relatively unaffected by climate change, the right to life cannot be fully realised. (Indian Kanoon)

Consequently, an energy transition cannot be assessed solely by counting renewable megawatts. It must also examine:

air quality;

water resources;

ecological impacts;

public health;

land use;

displacement;

climate resilience.

5. Right to Equality and a Just Transition

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution introduces an important distributional dimension to energy transition.

Climate change does not affect all people equally. Low-income communities may have fewer resources to adapt to heat, flooding, drought or food and water shortages. The Supreme Court specifically recognised this inequality dimension in M.K. Ranjitsinh. (Indian Kanoon)

A rights-based energy transition therefore asks:

Who benefits from renewable-energy development, and who bears its social and economic costs?

For example, a large solar or transmission project may contribute to national decarbonisation while requiring land acquisition from rural communities. Similarly, coal phase-outs may improve environmental conditions while affecting workers whose livelihoods depend upon coal mining.

A just transition therefore requires policies such as:

worker retraining;

alternative employment;

compensation;

community-development programmes;

social-security measures;

equitable access to new green-economy opportunities.

6. Procedural Environmental Rights

Rights-based transition also depends upon participatory governance.

The Supreme Court's decision in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) is important in this respect. The case concerned environmental clearance for the Mopa airport in Goa. The Court emphasised environmental rule of law, including access to information, public participation, accountability and access to justice. (Indian Kanoon)

These principles are directly applicable to energy projects such as:

solar parks;

wind farms;

hydroelectric dams;

transmission corridors;

nuclear facilities;

offshore wind projects;

hydrogen infrastructure;

battery-storage facilities.

A rights-based transition therefore requires environmental assessment and public participation to be substantive rather than merely procedural formalities.

7. Indigenous and Community Rights

Large-scale energy infrastructure frequently requires land and natural resources. Indigenous peoples and local communities can consequently experience displacement or disruption of traditional livelihoods.

A rights-based framework requires attention to:

land rights;

cultural rights;

customary resource use;

livelihood protection;

meaningful consultation;

rehabilitation;

compensation.

The principle is particularly important for hydroelectric dams, mining projects for transition minerals, transmission lines and renewable-energy installations.

The classic Indian case Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti v. State of U.P. demonstrates the judicial importance of scrutinising major energy infrastructure from the standpoint of safety and environmental consequences. The Supreme Court examined whether the government had properly considered the dam's safety and relevant expert assessments. (Indian Kanoon)

The case illustrates an important principle: energy infrastructure is not insulated from constitutional and environmental scrutiny merely because it serves public or developmental objectives.

8. Climate Rights and European Human-Rights Law

European climate litigation has significantly strengthened the connection between climate protection and human rights.

In Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (2024), the European Court of Human Rights held that the European Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by State authorities against serious adverse effects of climate change on life, health, well-being and quality of life. The Court accepted the association's standing while finding the individual applicants' complaints inadmissible for failure to satisfy the victim-status requirements. (ECHR)

The case demonstrates how human-rights law can impose procedural and substantive responsibilities upon governments concerning climate policy.

For energy transition, this means climate mitigation is increasingly capable of being examined through a rights-protection framework rather than exclusively as a matter of political discretion.

9. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands

The Urgenda litigation in the Netherlands is another major example.

Dutch courts required the State to take stronger measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, connecting climate protection with obligations arising from fundamental rights, including the rights protected under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case established an important legal proposition: insufficient climate action can potentially constitute a human-rights problem.

For energy transition, the implication is that governments may have positive obligations to establish sufficiently effective climate and energy policies rather than merely avoiding direct environmental harm.

10. Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell

The rights-based approach has also extended beyond governments to corporations.

In Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell, the District Court of The Hague in 2021 relied upon Dutch tort law, human-rights principles and international standards concerning corporate responsibility to order Shell to reduce its emissions. The court required a 45% net reduction by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. (Wiley Online Library)

However, the subsequent litigation demonstrates the limits and complexity of judicially imposed transition obligations. In November 2024, the Hague Court of Appeal overturned the District Court's order and dismissed the claims. The matter subsequently proceeded to the Dutch Supreme Court, where a hearing took place on 22 May 2026; the case remained pending after that hearing as of September 2026. (Shell)

The case is important because it raises the difficult question of how responsibility for the energy transition should be divided between governments, corporations and consumers.

11. Energy Affordability as a Rights Issue

A rights-based transition must also address energy affordability.

Rapid decarbonisation can increase short-term costs through:

grid investment;

renewable infrastructure;

carbon pricing;

electricity-market restructuring;

fossil-fuel phase-outs.

If these costs disproportionately affect low-income households, transition policies may create new forms of inequality.

Therefore, rights-based energy policy should consider:

targeted energy subsidies;

social tariffs;

energy-efficiency assistance;

protection against energy poverty;

universal electricity access;

affordable clean cooking;

distributed renewable energy.

The objective is not simply clean energy, but accessible and affordable clean energy.

12. Right to Participation in Energy Governance

Participation is particularly important because energy transition involves major infrastructure and long-term economic decisions.

A meaningful participatory framework should allow affected people to:

receive understandable information;

challenge environmental assessments;

participate in public hearings;

present alternative proposals;

obtain reasons for governmental decisions;

seek judicial or administrative remedies.

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar provides particularly useful Indian jurisprudence because the Court connected environmental rule of law with information, participation, institutional accountability and access to justice. (Sci API)

13. Rights of Future Generations

Energy infrastructure can operate for decades. Decisions concerning coal plants, gas infrastructure, nuclear facilities, hydroelectric dams and renewable grids may therefore create long-term consequences.

The public trust doctrine, sustainable-development principles and intergenerational-equity concepts provide legal tools for considering these effects.

A rights-based approach asks whether today's energy decisions unfairly transfer environmental risks to people who have not yet been born.

This is especially relevant to:

climate change;

nuclear waste;

biodiversity loss;

groundwater depletion;

fossil-fuel infrastructure;

long-lived energy assets.

14. Balancing Competing Rights

Rights-based energy transition does not mean that renewable energy automatically overrides every competing right.

For example, in M.K. Ranjitsinh, the Supreme Court had to address the tension between renewable-energy infrastructure and protection of the Great Indian Bustard. The judgment recognised both the importance of renewable energy and the constitutional significance of protection against climate change, while also requiring consideration of other affected rights and interests. (Indian Kanoon)

This illustrates an essential principle:

Energy transition requires rights balancing, not simply replacing one energy source with another.

Renewable projects can themselves produce impacts involving land, biodiversity, communities and livelihoods.

15. Key Principles of a Rights-Based Energy Transition

A comprehensive legal framework should therefore incorporate the following principles:

16. Major Case Laws at a Glance

India

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Article 21 and environmental protection.

Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti v. State of U.P. – scrutiny of safety and environmental considerations in major hydropower infrastructure. (Indian Kanoon)

Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 401 – environmental rule of law, EIA, participation and institutional accountability. (Indian Kanoon)

M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) – constitutional right against adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21. (Indian Kanoon)

International

Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands – human-rights obligations and governmental climate action.

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (2024) – human-rights protection against serious climate impacts. (ECHR)

Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell – corporate climate responsibility and the relationship between human rights and corporate emissions; the 2021 District Court ruling was later overturned on appeal in 2024, with further proceedings before the Dutch Supreme Court. (Shell)

17. Conclusion

A rights-based approach to energy transition changes the legal question from simply “How quickly can emissions be reduced?” to a broader question: “How can decarbonisation be achieved while protecting human dignity, equality, health, livelihoods, participation, environmental integrity and future generations?”

Indian constitutional law has developed an especially significant foundation through Articles 14 and 21, with M.K. Ranjitsinh (2024) recognising a constitutional right against the adverse effects of climate change. (Indian Kanoon) International jurisprudence such as Urgenda, KlimaSeniorinnen and the Shell litigation further demonstrates the increasing interaction between climate governance, human rights and corporate responsibility.

Ultimately, a rights-based energy transition requires three simultaneous commitments: rapid climate protection, protection of affected people, and meaningful participation in energy decision-making. The transition is therefore not merely a technological shift from fossil fuels to renewables; it is also a constitutional, social and legal transformation of the energy system.