1. Introduction

Continued dependence on coal, oil and natural gas creates a significant rights-based legal challenge because fossil-fuel extraction, combustion and infrastructure can contribute to air pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions, climate change, displacement and environmental degradation. These effects can interfere with rights such as the right to life, health, equality, livelihood, property, housing, culture and a healthy environment.

A rights-based approach does not necessarily mean that every fossil-fuel project is automatically unlawful. Rather, it requires governments to justify decisions concerning fossil fuels against constitutional, statutory and international human-rights obligations, particularly where foreseeable harm to vulnerable populations is involved.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has emphasized that States must respect, protect and fulfil human rights and take measures to prevent foreseeable human-rights harm caused by climate change. (OHCHR)

2. Fossil-Fuel Dependence and the Right to Life

The most important rights-based challenge arises from the connection between fossil-fuel use and the right to life.

Fossil-fuel combustion can produce particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and other pollutants. Climate change associated with greenhouse-gas emissions can additionally contribute to heatwaves, floods, droughts, food insecurity and other risks.

Under a rights-based framework, the State therefore has two interconnected responsibilities:

prevent unreasonable environmental harm from existing fossil-fuel activities; and

reduce foreseeable climate-related harm through appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures.

M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024)

The Supreme Court of India delivered an important judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280. The Court expressly recognized a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, deriving it principally from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. (Indian Kanoon)

The Court explained that climate change can affect Article 21 through impacts including air pollution, rising temperatures, disease, drought, food shortages, flooding and other environmental consequences. It also recognized that disadvantaged communities can suffer disproportionately, raising Article 14 equality concerns. (Indian Kanoon)

This is particularly important for fossil-fuel dependence because continued high-carbon development can become relevant to constitutional scrutiny when it creates foreseeable climate-related harm.

3. Right to Health

Fossil-fuel dependence creates a direct rights issue concerning public health.

Coal-fired power plants, oil combustion and fossil-fuel-intensive transportation can contribute to air pollution. Climate change can also increase health risks through:

extreme heat;

changing patterns of infectious diseases;

food and water insecurity;

respiratory illness;

floods and storms; and

disruption of health infrastructure.

The OHCHR has stated that climate change can negatively affect a broad range of human rights and that States should take measures to mitigate climate change and protect people against its effects. (OHCHR)

Consequently, energy policy cannot be treated solely as an economic or electricity-supply question. Where fossil-fuel decisions have substantial foreseeable health consequences, they can also become questions of constitutional and human-rights protection.

4. Right to Equality and Environmental Justice

Fossil-fuel dependence raises an important distributional justice problem.

The benefits of fossil-fuel consumption may be distributed throughout an economy, while environmental burdens can be concentrated in particular communities—for example, communities living near:

coal mines;

thermal power plants;

refineries;

pipelines;

ports;

oil and gas production facilities; and

fossil-fuel transportation corridors.

The Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh specifically recognized that climate impacts can disproportionately affect poorer and geographically or socially vulnerable communities. It gave examples involving islands, forest-dependent communities and people whose livelihoods are closely connected to natural resources. (Indian Kanoon)

Thus, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution can become relevant where climate and environmental burdens are distributed unequally.

5. Rights of Indigenous and Local Communities

Fossil-fuel extraction frequently requires land, mineral resources and infrastructure.

This can affect:

indigenous peoples;

forest communities;

farmers;

fishing communities;

pastoralists; and

other land-dependent populations.

The rights issue is broader than physical displacement. Communities may lose:

traditional livelihoods;

access to forests and water;

cultural practices;

community institutions;

ancestral relationships with land; and

economic security.

In M.K. Ranjitsinh, the Supreme Court emphasized that climate change may threaten the homes, livelihoods and cultures of indigenous and traditional communities. (Indian Kanoon)

International human-rights bodies similarly emphasize that climate measures should respect the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities and other vulnerable groups. (OHCHR)

6. Intergenerational Equity

Another major challenge is the principle of intergenerational equity.

Fossil-fuel infrastructure can have a lifespan of decades. Decisions made today can therefore determine emissions and environmental risks experienced by future generations.

The rights-based argument is that present generations should not make decisions that unnecessarily transfer substantial environmental costs to people who cannot participate in today's decision-making.

The Supreme Court's reasoning in M.K. Ranjitsinh expressly connected climate governance with the interests of future generations and sustainable development. (Indian Kanoon)

The Paris Agreement's preamble likewise recognizes human-rights considerations including the rights of vulnerable people and intergenerational equity. (Indian Kanoon)

7. European Human-Rights Jurisprudence

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (2024)

The European Court of Human Rights' Grand Chamber judgment in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland is one of the most significant recent climate-human-rights decisions.

The Court held that the European Convention encompasses a right to effective protection by State authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on life, health, well-being and quality of life. It found a violation of Article 8 concerning respect for private and family life and a violation of Article 6 §1 concerning access to court. (ECHR)

The case is significant for fossil-fuel dependence because it demonstrates that inadequate climate protection can potentially be examined through human-rights law rather than solely through environmental or administrative law.

Importantly, the Court did not establish that a particular fossil-fuel activity is automatically prohibited. Rather, it imposed human-rights obligations concerning effective State protection against serious climate impacts.

8. Procedural Rights and Public Participation

Rights-based fossil-fuel governance also includes procedural rights.

Affected persons should have meaningful opportunities to:

obtain environmental information;

participate in decision-making;

challenge unlawful environmental decisions;

obtain reasons for governmental decisions; and

access courts or other effective remedies.

This is particularly important for large mining, refinery, pipeline and power-generation projects.

In KlimaSeniorinnen, the European Court specifically found a violation relating to access to court, demonstrating that procedural access can itself become a human-rights issue in climate litigation. (HUDOC)

9. Fossil-Fuel Subsidies as a Rights Issue

A rights-based approach can also question governmental financial support for fossil fuels.

Where governments subsidize fossil-fuel consumption or production, potential legal questions include:

whether public resources are being used consistently with environmental obligations;

whether subsidies worsen foreseeable climate harms;

whether vulnerable populations bear disproportionate environmental costs; and

whether subsidies impede fulfilment of other rights.

The OHCHR has specifically identified ending fossil-fuel subsidies as one component of a rights-based approach to addressing dependence on fossil fuels. (OHCHR)

This does not automatically make every subsidy legally invalid. Its legality depends upon the applicable constitutional, statutory and administrative framework.

10. Tension Between Energy Access and Fossil-Fuel Reduction

A sophisticated rights-based analysis must recognize that fossil-fuel dependence can also be connected with energy access and development.

Developing economies may rely on coal, oil and gas to provide:

electricity;

transport;

industrial production;

employment; and

economic development.

Rapid fossil-fuel restrictions can therefore raise questions concerning affordability, employment and reliable electricity.

The legal challenge is consequently not simply "fossil fuels versus rights." It involves balancing multiple rights and interests.

In M.K. Ranjitsinh, the Supreme Court itself recognized the need to consider climate protection alongside other concerns, including renewable-energy development, electricity needs and the rights of affected communities. (Indian Kanoon)

A rights-based energy transition therefore requires attention to energy affordability, reliability, employment, environmental protection and distributive justice simultaneously.

11. Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development

Indian environmental jurisprudence has developed principles such as:

sustainable development;

precautionary principle;

polluter-pays principle;

public trust doctrine; and

protection of the right to a clean environment.

These principles can influence decisions concerning fossil-fuel projects.

The constitutional environmental framework combines Article 21 with Directive Principle Article 48A and Fundamental Duty Article 51A(g). In M.K. Ranjitsinh, the Supreme Court explained that these provisions help establish the constitutional importance of environmental protection and the right against adverse climate effects. (Indian Kanoon)

12. Corporate Responsibility

Rights-based challenges are not limited to governments.

Businesses involved in:

coal mining;

oil and gas production;

fossil-fuel transportation;

refining; and

electricity generation

may have responsibilities to prevent and address human-rights harms associated with their operations.

International human-rights guidance emphasizes that States should regulate activities contributing to foreseeable climate-related harm and that businesses also have responsibilities concerning human rights. (OHCHR Southeast Asia Office)

This creates potential legal issues concerning environmental approvals, corporate disclosure, due diligence, pollution control and climate-related representations.

13. Major Case Laws

14. Key Legal Challenges Created by Continued Fossil-Fuel Dependence

The rights-based challenges can therefore be summarized as follows:

A. Constitutional challenge

Continued fossil-fuel dependence may be challenged where it contributes to violations of constitutionally protected environmental and life interests.

B. Health challenge

Pollution and climate impacts can threaten the right to health and life.

C. Equality challenge

Climate and pollution burdens can fall disproportionately on poorer and vulnerable communities.

D. Indigenous-rights challenge

Extraction projects can interfere with land, livelihood, cultural and community interests.

E. Intergenerational challenge

Long-lived fossil-fuel infrastructure can transfer environmental costs to future generations.

F. Procedural challenge

Insufficient access to information, participation or judicial review can raise independent rights concerns.

G. Corporate accountability

Businesses may face obligations concerning environmental and human-rights impacts.

H. Energy-transition challenge

Governments must reconcile emissions reduction with energy affordability, reliability, development and employment.

15. Conclusion

Rights-based challenges to continued fossil-fuel dependence represent a significant evolution in energy law. Fossil-fuel policy is increasingly viewed not merely as a question of energy economics, but also as a question of constitutional rights, human rights, environmental justice and governmental responsibility.

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh is particularly important because it expressly recognized a constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21. (Indian Kanoon) The European Court of Human Rights' KlimaSeniorinnen judgment similarly demonstrates that inadequate climate protection can engage Convention rights. (ECHR)

Accordingly, the central legal question is not simply whether fossil fuels remain part of the energy mix. It is whether governmental and corporate decisions concerning their production and use adequately protect life, health, equality, livelihood, environmental integrity, procedural participation and the interests of present and future generations. A rights-based transition therefore requires both effective climate mitigation and safeguards for communities whose economic and social rights may be affected by the transition itself. (OHCHR)