ABSTRACT:
Climate change litigation has emerged as a significant area of environmental law. Courts around the world increasingly deal with issues of climate responsibility, state duties, and corporate accountability. India is no exception. The Supreme Court of India and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) have been key in shaping climate governance through their interpretation of the Constitution and innovative rulings. By building on environmental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, Indian courts have linked the right to life with protection against harmful climate effects. This article explores the changing landscape of climate litigation in India, the importance of judicial precedents, and the challenges in achieving effective climate justice. By examining important cases and recent court decisions, it argues that Indian courts have shifted the conversation about environmental protection to a rights-based framework. This approach not only supports India’s constitutional goals but also aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the country’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement.
1. INTRODUCTION:
The growing climate crisis has shown the limits of traditional policy measures in dealing with global warming, biodiversity loss, and environmental harm. Around the world, climate change litigation has become an important way to hold governments and corporations accountable, especially when there is no action from leaders. Landmark cases like Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands and Juliana v. United States demonstrate how courts are expanding fundamental rights to include climate justice.
In India, the situation is particularly serious. The country faces major demographic pressures, rapid industrial growth, and development needs that create a complex environment where sustainability often conflicts with economic growth. Still, the Indian judiciary has taken a proactive stance on environmental governance. Through broad interpretations of Article 21, the Supreme Court and High Courts have recognized that the right to life includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. This has recently expanded to provide protection against the negative impacts of climate change, positioning India as a key player in global climate law.
The judiciary has also used principles like sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and intergenerational equity to balance environmental health with development needs. The establishment of the NGT in 2010 marked a major advancement by creating a dedicated forum for environmental and climate disputes. This article examines how these judicial innovations have shaped climate change litigation in India, putting them in the wider global discussion on climate justice while connecting them to India’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and its Net Zero 2070 goal.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND CLIMATE JURISPRUDENCE:
India’s environmental law is based on a broad interpretation of fundamental rights and duties. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Courts have interpreted this to include the right to a clean environment. This view helps courts see environmental and climate protection as vital to human dignity and survival.
Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve the environment, while Article 51A(g) imposes a duty on citizens to protect the environment. Although these provisions are not legally enforceable, they guide judicial reasoning and help courts connect environmental concerns with constitutional values.
Judicial precedents have reinforced this rights-based framework. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to clean air and water is a part of the right to life under Article 21. Similarly, in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, the Court upheld the principle that the polluter pays, establishing accountability for environmental damage. Together with the public trust doctrine, these principles have formed the foundation for climate litigation.
By integrating environmental rights into constitutional protections, Indian courts have shifted climate issues from simple policy goals to enforceable fundamental rights. This aligns domestic law with international climate commitments.
3. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND CASE STUDIES:
Judicial precedents have significantly influenced climate change litigation in India. Many cases occurred before the explicit recognition of climate rights, but they paved the way for today’s judicial focus on climate governance.
(a) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: The Oleum Gas Leak case introduced the concept of absolute liability for hazardous industries, moving away from the stricter English liability doctrine. It also presented the precautionary principle, which calls for preventive measures against environmental risks. While not directly focused on climate, these principles are now key in climate litigation, especially for cases involving greenhouse gas emissions.
(b) Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India: The Supreme Court recognized sustainable development and intergenerational equity as essential to Indian law. The Court balanced economic activity with ecological protection, stating that development should not harm the rights of future generations. These principles are fundamental in climate litigation, weighing long-term ecological stability against short-term economic gains.
(c) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India: Initial concerns about forest conservation led this case to crucial proceedings that redefined forest governance in India. The Court’s broad orders on afforestation, biodiversity protection, and forest regulation have direct implications for climate resilience, as forests serve as important carbon sinks.
(d) M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India: This case focused on protecting the Great Indian Bustard, an endangered species threatened by high-tension power lines. The Court ordered that power cables be buried in sensitive areas of Rajasthan and Gujarat. This judgment reflects a holistic view of biodiversity and climate change, stressing the importance of conserving ecosystems for climate resilience.
(e) Supreme Court of India, Judgment on Climate Rights (Apr. 2024): In a landmark ruling, the Court recognized the right to be free from harmful climate effects as part of Article 21. By framing climate justice as a constitutional issue, the Court elevated climate protection to an enforceable right.
(f) National Green Tribunal, In re: Air Pollution in Delhi (2015–2023): The NGT has stepped in to cut emissions from vehicles and industries in Delhi, directing actions such as phasing out diesel vehicles and controlling construction dust. While these cases mainly focus on air quality, they also contribute to climate mitigation.
(g) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products: The Supreme Court revoked licenses for wood-based industries to prevent deforestation, emphasizing sustainable forest use and ecological conservation.
Together, these precedents show how the judiciary is evolving to connect environmental protection with climate governance. They reflect a growing trend where principles from environmental law are increasingly applied to address the challenges of climate change.
4. EMERGING TRENDS IN CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION IN INDIA:
Recent developments show that climate change litigation in India is moving beyond traditional environmental issues into a new area focused on rights-based climate governance. Several emerging trends are worth noting.
(a) Rights-Based Litigation. Petitioners are increasingly framing climate harms as violations of fundamental rights under Article 21. The recognition of a constitutional right against harmful climate impacts in 2024 has strengthened this approach, giving litigants a direct constitutional basis to demand accountability.
(b) Biodiversity and Climate Nexus. Courts are linking ecosystem protection to climate resilience more often. Cases like M.K. Ranjitsinh (2021) demonstrate that conserving species and protecting habitats are essential for broader climate action strategies.
(c) Corporate Accountability. There is a growing emphasis on holding companies responsible for their role in climate change. Petitions often call for stricter compliance with emission standards, greater transparency in carbon disclosures, and accountability under the polluter pays principle. This aligns with global efforts to regulate corporate climate responsibility.
(d) Youth and Intergenerational Petitions. Motivated by international movements, young petitioners in India are asserting their right to a sustainable future. Such litigation reflects the reasoning of Juliana v. United States, placing intergenerational equity at the center of climate justice.
(e) Judicial Expansion of Article 21. Courts continue to broaden the interpretation of Article 21, incorporating ideas like climate security and environmental democracy. This reinforces the constitutional basis for climate justice.
Together, these trends indicate a significant change: Indian climate litigation is shifting from reactive environmental protection to proactive climate governance.
5. CHALLENGES IN CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION:
While the Indian judiciary has been active in pushing forward climate law, several challenges continue to hinder the effectiveness of climate change litigation.
(a) Enforcement Gaps. Judicial orders, even when progressive, often experience weak or delayed enforcement. Despite numerous directives from the NGT and the Supreme Court regarding air pollution in Delhi, compliance has been inconsistent due to bureaucratic delays and overlaps between central and state authorities.
(b) Absence of Specific Climate Legislation. India does not have a comprehensive legal framework specifically for climate change. Existing laws, like the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, and the Air and Water Acts address pollution but do not directly manage greenhouse gas emissions or climate adaptation measures. This legal gap forces courts to stretch constitutional principles, which raises concerns about judicial overreach.
(c) Development versus Environment Dilemma. India’s drive for rapid economic growth often conflicts with ecological sustainability. Infrastructure projects, mining, and energy expansion—especially coal—remain contentious issues as courts struggle to balance development needs and long-term climate responsibilities.
(d) Limited Awareness and Access to Justice. Climate harms disproportionately affect marginalized communities, such as farmers, fisherfolk, and indigenous groups. However, these communities often face financial and procedural obstacles when trying to access courts, leading many climate cases to be centered in urban, NGO-led settings.
These challenges highlight the boundaries of judicial activism without coordinated legislative and executive action. Effective climate governance needs a collaborative framework in which judicial decisions are backed by strong policy and institutional support.
6. ALIGNMENT WITH GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION:
Indian climate change litigation is increasingly aligning with global judicial trends that recognize climate protection as a fundamental right. Insights from other countries show how courts worldwide are handling similar issues, placing Indian law within a broader international context.
The Dutch Supreme Court in Urgenda Foundation v. State of Netherlands, HR 20 Dec. 2019, ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions to meet its human rights obligations. Similarly, in Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016), American youth petitioners argued that the government’s inaction violated their constitutional right to a safe climate. The German Constitutional Court also invalidated parts of its Climate Protection Act in 2021 for not adequately protecting future generations.
India’s 2024 Supreme Court ruling that recognizes the right against harmful climate impacts resonates with these global decisions. By constitutionalizing climate justice, India has joined the ranks of jurisdictions where courts have a transformative role in climate governance.
Moreover, Indian law aligns with the country’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement and its pledge to reach Net Zero emissions by 2070. In doing this, courts not only enforce constitutional values but also hold the government accountable for international climate commitments, reinforcing India’s position in the global battle against climate change.
CONCLUSION:
Climate change litigation in India has quickly evolved from being a side issue to a key part of constitutional rights law. The recognition of a fundamental right against harmful climate impacts in 2024 represents a major turning point, placing India alongside leaders in climate adjudication. Through innovative judicial approaches, courts have expanded the scope of Article 21, integrated intergenerational equity, and stressed the polluter pays and precautionary principles.
REFERANCE:
- C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 395 (India).
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647 (India).
- N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 267 (India).
- K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2021 S.C.C. OnLine S.C. 362 (India).
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 598 (India).
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 212 (India).
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products, (1995) 6 S.C.C. 363 (India).
- In re Air Pollution in Delhi, N.G.T. (2015–2023) (India).
- Urgenda Found. v. State of Netherlands, HR 20 dec. 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (Neth.).
- Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016).
- Supreme Court of India, Judgment on Climate Rights under Article 21 (Apr. 2024) (India).
- India Const. art. 21.
- India Const. art. 48A.
- India Const. art. 51A(g).
- Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, India Code (1986).
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, No. 14 of 1981, India Code (1981).
- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, No. 6 of 1974, India Code (1974).
- Biological Diversity Act, No. 18 of 2002, India Code (2002).
- National Green Tribunal Act, No. 19 of 2010, India Code (2010).
- Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
