Is ICJ's ruling on climate change merely symbolic?
Climate change poses an 'urgent and existential threat,' the court said.
It held that climate action is not based on any one law but is rather a mix of international law provisions like the UN charter, and international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Paris Agreement, among others, and that they should influence the actions that member states take to protect the environment.
The Court also ruled that countries bear the responsibility of protecting the earth's climate systems, reduce emissions and limit global warming.
Several countries have hailed the Court's decision, saying that it adds heft to humanity's fight against climate change.
The ruling hits all the right notes -- it places human rights at the forefront of the fight against global warming. But, is it merely symbolic, given it is an advisory opinion and not enforceable?
Guest: Dr. Vaibhav Chaturvedi, The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW)
Host: Nivedita V
Edited by Sharmada venkatasubramanian
Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
7 hours ago
- The Hindu
Can the ICJ ruling force rich nations to pay for historical emissions?
On July 23, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion reaffirming states' legal obligations to mitigate climate change. The court emphasised that countries are required to reduce their greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and support vulnerable nations. The ruling has sparked debates over sovereignty, enforcement, and global equity. Can the ICJ ruling force rich nations to pay for historical emissions? Guests: Ted Nordhaus, American environmental thinker and co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, which is based in California, and Anand Grover, U.N. Special Rapporteur on health, and has represented environmental and health related cases at the Supreme Court. Host: Kunal Shankar Edited by: Jude Francis Weston Read the Parley article here. You can now find The Hindu's podcasts on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Stitcher. Search for Parley by The Hindu. Write to us with comments and feedback at socmed4@ For more Parley episodes:
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
Nudges from the Court, silence from the commission
The Supreme Court of India speaks in questions. Sometimes softly, sometimes sharply. In its hearings on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar, the Court has asked what many in the country were thinking: Why was there a sudden need for fresh documentation? Why now? And what happens to the millions who cannot comply? Yet, the Court got a response from the ECI that did not address the underlying concern. The ECI insists that this is a technical revision. But the reality on the ground, and the implications of its policy, tell a very different story. The SIR in Bihar requires every voter to submit new proof of citizenship — within one month — or face removal from the voter list. The stated intent is accuracy. But the effect is exclusion. This is not administrative housekeeping. It is an ideological shift in the treatment of citizens: from presumed inclusion to presumptive exclusion. This shift marks a deep departure from the constitutional vision of universal adult franchise. Also Read | Mass inclusion, and not exclusion, should be the goal of the Bihar SIR, says Supreme Court Turning away from constitutional promises When India became a republic, it did something radical: it gave the vote to all adults, regardless of literacy, income, caste or gender. The Constituent Assembly debated this extensively. Many Members doubted whether the country was ready. But Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, among others, insisted that political equality must come first as a prelude to achieving social and economic equality. That principle was translated into practice by the first Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Sukumar Sen (March 21, 1950-December 18, 1958). Faced with 173 million potential voters, most of them illiterate, he innovated. He introduced voting symbols and designed processes that made participation easy, not difficult. India's first elections were not perfect, but they were inclusive. In contrast, the revision in Bihar by India's 26th CEC, Gyanesh Kumar, is the opposite. By demanding rare documents such as birth certificates and passports — held by only a small fraction of the population, the ECI is setting a bar that millions cannot meet. Aadhaar cards and ration cards, widely held by the poor, are not accepted. In Bihar, over 65 lakh people may now be at risk of disenfranchisement. This is not an isolated event. We saw a similar exercise in Assam. The classification of lungi-wearing, Bengali-speaking Muslim inhabitants as 'D-voters' (doubtful voters) by the officers of the Election Commission, turned thousands into stateless persons. Many found themselves pleading before foreigners' tribunals, facing hostile bureaucracies and with no real opportunity to prove citizenship. With tribunals declaring them as foreigners and with no country ready to accept them, many have been just forcibly thrown away across India's borders, as unwanted human detritus. Bihar is at risk of repeating that mistake. The State is poor, flood-prone, and infrastructurally weak. A rigid document deadline during the monsoon season is not just poor planning. It is a barrier, intentionally or otherwise, for the poor and the marginalised to access the ballot box . The burden of proof has now shifted. Citizens must prove that they belong, rather than the state proving they do not. This reversal may seem technical, but its moral and democratic cost is immense. Also Read | In Bihar SIR challenge, Supreme Court refers to 1977 verdict on Election Commission's powers Historical lessons and warnings There are disturbing echoes here of the Jim Crow era in the United States (late 19th century to the mid-20th century), where African-American voters were disenfranchised through literacy tests, poll taxes and administrative obstructions. The veneer was legal; the purpose was political. It took federal intervention and landmark rulings such as Reynolds vs Sims (1964) and the Voting Rights Act 1965 to restore the right to vote as a true universal right. India has similar legal protections. Supreme Court rulings such as Md. Rahim Ali vs State of Assam (2024) and Lal Babu Hussein vs Electoral Registration Officer (1995) have made it clear: disenfranchisement without due process is unconstitutional. Citizenship cannot be revoked or denied arbitrarily. Yet, here we are again — requiring the most vulnerable to navigate a process stacked against them. The Court, during its hearing, asked pointed questions about the humanitarian consequences of the ECI's actions. But the ECI's response has been administrative, not empathetic. It continues to insist on timelines and technicalities, without addressing the social reality. The ECI's constitutional mandate is not merely to maintain clean lists. It is to ensure free and fair elections. This means enabling the right to vote — not erecting barriers to it. In this, the ECI is failing. And the Court, while alert, must decide whether it will continue nudging it or start directing it. A soft caution is not enough when millions face disenfranchisement. If this continues unchecked, we are entering dangerous territory. Voting could become a privilege of the documented middle class — urban, salaried, tech-savvy — while the poor, the displaced, and the undocumented are left behind. We risk creating two Indias: one with voting rights and one without. Political parties will then cater only to those who count — literally. Those without votes will be ignored in policymaking, welfare and justice. We are not just talking about voter lists here. We are talking about power — Who gets it. Who keeps it. And who is kept out of it. Also Read | The need to safeguard the right to vote A quiet Emergency There is no need for tanks on the street to declare an emergency. A quiet one is already here. It arrives through missing names, unmet deadlines and unanswered questions. It arrives when state machinery treats citizenship as a favour, not a right. This moment calls for resistance — not just from the Court, but from citizens, civil society and Parliament. We must reclaim the principle that the right to vote belongs to the people, not the paperwork. Sadak, samaj and Supreme Court must loudly proclaim that Mother India belongs to all her children and that she does not discriminate on a religious or economic basis when her protection is sought. As historian Ornit Shani reminds us in the book, How India Became Democratic, universal franchise was not an administrative accident, it was an imaginative leap. Bureaucrats and citizens together transformed a colonial mindset into a democratic one. That achievement must not be undone in the name of vigilance. The ECI must remember that elections are not entrance examinations. They are acts of belonging. And in a democracy, you do not have to prove you belong. You vote because you are a citizen. And you are a citizen because the Constitution says so, not because you can find your birth certificate. The vote is not a mere document. It is a declaration: that we are all equal. That one man has one vote and one vote has one value. That even if I have one vote out of 1.4 billion votes, it is an equal share in the republic, in which I and every Indian are equal participants. That right of ownership and participation is what is now at stake. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate designated by the Supreme Court of India
New Indian Express
17 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court to hear cases on Rohingya status, detention
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear cases related to Rohingyas as to whether they are refugees or illegal entrants, and whether they can be detained indefinitely in India. The apex court, which was hearing a batch of petitions on the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees in the country, identified the main issues and decided to segregate them for adjudication later. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, while recording the submissions of the petitioners and others, observed that once the key issues are decided, other factors might be consequential. The Court segregated the cases for convenience and passed an order to hear the matter based on these issues. 'Are Rohingyas entitled to be declared as refugees, and if so, what protections or rights are they entitled to? If they are not refugees but illegal entrants, are the Union government's actions in deporting them justified? Even if they are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely, or are they entitled to be released on bail under conditions the Court deem fit to be imposed? Whether the Rohingyas who are not detained and living in refugee camps, have been provided basic amenities such as sanitation, drinking water, and education, etc. (in conformity with Article 21)?' The Court also said it would examine whether, if the Rohingyas are deemed illegal entrants, the Government of India and the States are obligated to deport them in accordance with the law. It, however, clarified that the issues that arose in Batch II will be dealt with separately by the Supreme Court. The apex court, however, did not fix any particular date to hear the issues.
