Assigning Responsibility for Climate Action: A Legal and Moral Imperative

Author: Shobha Tiwari, City Group Of Colleges, Lucknow

• To the Point:
Climate change is a significant risk to both humans and the environment. Addressing legal accountability for climate action involves various levels, including governments, companies, and individuals, within domestic and international legal systems.

• Use of Legal Jargon :
State sovereignty, the polluter-pays principle, intergenerational equity, strict liability, the public trust doctrine, environmental jurisprudence, judicial activism, and transboundary harm are essential for establishing climate accountability within environmental law.

• The Proof :
The UNFCCC (1992) and Paris Agreement (2015) legally require countries that sign them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
IPCC Reports offer a consensus among scientists regarding climate change caused by human activities.
As a legal organization, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established by the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010 to address environmental issues and hasten the execution of pertinent rulings.
Within a maximum of six months, the Tribunal is required to decide on applications and petitions.

The National Green Tribunal has issued several landmark judgments for example; the NGT had labeled the plying of diesel vehicles aged more than 15 years illegal upon Delhi roads in an attempt to prevent unchecked air pollution.

In order to empower the National Green Tribunal to resolve environmental disputes and assess pollutants for liability, the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was implemented.

The concept of CBDR states that the burden of the developed nations is higher both in legal and ethical terms.
• Abstract :
Distributed obligations are part of climate governance. According to international environmental law, nation-states, especially those with high historical emissions, bear primary responsibility. The polluter pays principle places the onus of remediation on major polluters, including corporate actors. In India, the judiciary has gradually expanded Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to enshrine the right to a clean and healthy environment, but enforcement varies across jurisdictions because of weak sanctions and overlapping legal authorities. Article 48-A of the Indian Constitution lays down a Directive Principle of State Policy.

Fundamental Right
The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 guarantees the preservation of human life and liberty. It states that no one may be robbed of their personal freedom unless a legally mandated process is followed. Article 21: The entitlement to a healthy environment

Clearly, this includes the right to a quiet environment.

Directive principles of state policy
According to Article 39 (e) of the Indian Constitution, which is a directive principle of State policy, the State is directed to ensure that workers’ health and strength, as well as that young children are not mistreated, and that citizens are not compelled to pursue careers that are inappropriate for their age or physical capabilities due to financial necessity.
Fundamental Duty
According to Article 39 (e) of the Indian Constitution, which is a directive principle of State policy, the State is directed to ensure that workers’ health and strength, as well as that young children are not mistreated, and that citizens are not compelled to pursue careers that are inappropriate for their age or physical capabilities due to financial necessity.

The Indian constitution countries in composition 51-A (g) that” it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to have compassion for living brutes and to cover and ameliorate the natural terrain, including timbers, lakes, gutters, and wild life”
In addition, the Environment( protection ) Act,1986, the Railroads Act, and the Motor Vehicles Act were passed.

passed in the aftermath of the Bhopal calamity under Articles 253 of the Indian Constitution.

Legal enforcement, however, continues to be inconsistent on a global scale as a result of the absence of binding sanctions and jurisdictional challenges.

• Case Laws:

Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case
This case is a perfect example of tampering with nature and how horrible consequences can be.
U.S base company Union carbide corporate ( UCC)set up there’s pesticides plant in bhopal, Madhyapradesh, in 1969.
The tragedy happen due to leakage of highly toxic gas Methyl Isocyanate (MIC).
In the mid night of 2 December, 1984 Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) leaked.
There’s no emergency or medical facilities are available.
The gas was spread around 3 to 7km.
The legal action began in US court but eventually the case trasfer to India.
Indian government train case on the behalf of victims.
The madhyapradesh high court and district court orded interim compansation and the final settlement amount of ₹250 crores.
2,600 people have not just lose their life ,there are more than 5 lakhs people who face health complications lifelong.

Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 2715)

Polluter pays principal
This mean that those who cause pollution must pay for the damage cause to the environment and public health, including the cost of cleaning and restoring the ecological balance.
(b) Precautionary  principle
If an action is likely to harm the environment or public health, even without full scientific proof, the responsibility to prove it is safe lines with the one taking the action simply put, it wise to prevent danger than to fix it later.
MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987 AIR 965)

Introduced the concept of absolute liability for hazardous industries, making them liable for environmental harm without exceptions.



Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (2015)

Landmark case where a national court held the State legally responsible for inadequate climate action, based on the duty of care under human rights law.



Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021)

Dutch court mandated Shell to reduce CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030, highlighting corporate climate responsibility.

• Conclusion

Assigning responsibility for climate action is no longer a policy preference but a legal compulsion. International treaties, judicial activism, and evolving environmental jurisprudence affirm that States, corporations, and individuals are all accountable. The enforceability of legal norms and global cooperation remains key to averting climate catastrophe. Strengthening compliance mechanisms and embedding environmental justice in constitutional frameworks can transform climate litigation into effective climate action.

• FAQS

Q1. Who is fairly responsible for climate change?
Ans States, particularly industrialized bones, bear primary legal responsibility under international law. Under common law principles and domestic environmental legislation, pots and individuals can be held accountable.


Q2. Can a pot be sued for climate change?
Ans Yes. Recent precedents like Milieudefensie v. Shell demonstrate that pots can be fairly impelled to reduce emigrations.

Q3. What part does the Indian bar play in climate action?
Ans The Indian bar, especially the Supreme Court and NGT, has expanded the compass of environmental rights under Composition 21, creating a robust legal frame for environmental protection.

Q4. What is the notion of “polluter pays”?
Ans It’s an environmental law doctrine which authorizations that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to help damage to mortal health or the terrain.

Q5. Are international climate covenants fairly binding?
Ans covenants like the Paris Agreement contain both list andnon- binding vittles. Enforcement depends on public legislation and global political will.