Author – Nikita Patidar Student at Institute of Law,Nirma University
ABSTRACT
The climate emergency, which was erstwhile a policy or scientific problem, has now become an urgent legal concern. India’s judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), has played an active role in designing the country’s environmental governance framework by intervening in climate issues. This paper explores how Indian courts have interpreted constitutional requirements like Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g) to enforce environmental rights, tackle environmental degradation, and react to climate threats like air pollution, deforestation, and water scarcity. It also examines the growing deployment of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a climate justice tool and situates Indian developments against international climate litigation trends, such as the Urgenda (Netherlands) and Juliana v. United States cases. The analysis identifies how judicial ingenuity, in many cases covering legislating and executive lacunae, is inevitable but problematic in terms of judicial overreach and calls for systemic reforms.
USE OF LAW
This article liberally draws on constitutional provisions (Articles 21, 48A, 51A (g)), the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and various Supreme Court and NGT decisions. International cases (Urgenda, Juliana) are drawn upon to furnish comparative jurisprudential insights, demonstrating how climate litigation is emerging as an internationalising legal trend.
THE PROOF
The cited legal developments—such as M.C. Mehta, Vellore Citizens, and Friends of the Earth—illustrate the Indian judiciary’s positive engagement in the recognition of climate-related rights. Empirical proof from NGT cases, global standards such as Urgenda, and academic reasoning justify the contention that courts are becoming champions of climate justice where other institutions fail.
INTRODUCTION
India’s courts have increasingly inserted themselves in the climate domain to complement legislative and executive paralysis. Notable court decisions and tribunal interventions during 2024–25 have asserted new climate rights, enforced environmental standards, and exposed implementation loopholes. With the Supreme Court’s M K Ranjitsinh judgment officially recognizing a basic right to be exempted from the ill effects of climate change, and the NGT acting aggressively on pollution and environmental damage, this article looks at these judicial measures, contrasts them with global precedents, and analyzes follow-up to see the actual impact on the ground.
DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONS: RIGHTS, PRINCIPLE, AND DOCTRINE
India’s constitutional structure has over the years supported environmental jurisprudence. Virender Gaur v State of Haryana and M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath initially enshrined environmental protection in Article 21’s right to life. The Ranjitsinh decision enhances these, officially invoking Articles 14 and 21—and leaning on Directive Principle Article 48A and Fundamental Duty Article 51A(g)—to define a clear climate right. The Court ruled that “the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” is basic and enforceable . With this paradigm, judicial instruments such as the precautionary and polluter‑pays principles and public-trust doctrine acquire doctrinal potency, allowing courts to impose active state and private action.
HISTORIC SUPREME COURT RULING: M K RANJITSINH
In a case centered on the conservation of Great Indian Bustards, the Supreme Court of India painted its picture even broader than the protection of wildlife by linking biodiversity conservation, climate commitments, and climate justice. The ruling highlighted climate change’s disproportionate effect, particularly on vulnerable tribal, rural, and female groups, as a violation of Articles 14 and 21. It charged the state with incorporating climate duties into all areas of public policy, based on the Paris Agreement and sustainable development principles. This aggressive constitutional understanding is a jurisprudential shift towards climate responsibility.
ROLE OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
The NGT, established through the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, has emerged as an important institution for climate adjudication. It functions on the basis of natural justice and sustainable development. For example, in the matter of In Re: Water Pollution by Tanneries at Jajmau, the tribunal directed drastic river restoration measures and imposed a fine on polluters.
In In Re: Vehicular Pollution in Delhi, the NGT held the government guilty of doing nothing to cut down vehicular emissions, directly linking pollution with climate change. Such decisions are evidence of the way the NGT has evolved from being an adjudicator to a quasi-regulatory body.
NGT INTERVENTIONS: SEWAGE, WATER, AND LAND USE
a. Loni’s Sewage Fines (July 2025)
In a high-stakes verdict, the NGT penalised the UP Jal Board ₹21.5 crore and Loni civic authorities’ ₹2.5 crore for releasing untreated sewage into a green belt, damaging groundwater and adjacent ecology. The tribunal ordered construction of a 108 MLD STP, sewer network laying, and filing of detailed restoration plans by a joint committee in three months. This is indicative of the NGT’s willingness to bring custodians financially to book in accordance with the polluter‑pays principle.
b. Chennai’s 118‑acre MRC Land (July 2025)
On its own motion, the NGT froze development proposed by Tamil Nadu authorities on reclaimed land from the Madras Race Club. It directed conversion into a water storage body for groundwater recharge and urban flood control and restrained horticultural plans pending statewide executive input. This intervention demonstrates the tribunal’s holistic environmental vision and precautionary use of jurisdiction.
c. Coal‑Plant Emissions—SC Stay (June 2025)
Compared with the NGT’s strict regulation, the Supreme Court in June 2025 stayed an NGT order requiring new environmental clearances for thermal power plants changing coal grades—a directive that would curb sulphur and ash releases. The SC reasoned its stay invoking energy security reasons, demonstrating between a conflict of environmental prudence and economic needs.
GLOBAL COMPARISONS: URGENDA AND JULIANA
Urgenda (Netherlands, 2019) made a categorical mandate for the Dutch State to cut CO₂ emissions by at least 25% below the 1990 level, rooted in human rights under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. Its success can be attributed to well-specified targets and strong enforcement provisions.
Juliana v United States, on the other hand, failed because of unambitious policy objectives, separation-of-powers limitations, and absence of direct redressability. U.S. courts held it nonjusticiable, highlighting the need for clear legal requirements instead of inspirational goals.
Lessons for India: 1) Rights should be supported by definite, binding obligations; 2) Judicial orders must have measurable enforcement; 3) Protection must be fair and legally enforceable.
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES & CONSTRAINTS
While judicial pronouncements are foundational, real-world delivery lags. In Loni, sewage-to-groundwater contamination continues as bureaucratic capacity and funding are insufficient. Delhi’s DJB was recently penalized ₹25,000 by the NGT for ignoring compliance directives on STP odour and records. Similarly, multiple river cleanup mandates across UP and Maharashtra have stalled due to coordination failures between local and state agencies. The Supreme Court’s stay on coal emissions underscores credit-versus-development dilemmas. These trends demonstrate judicial weakness if based on institutional good faith alone.
JUDICIAL EFFICACY RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to improve judicial efficacy in effecting court judgments to tangible climate action, a multi-faceted strategy is necessary. Legislative codification is the first step to giving legal effect to climate orders. Enacting a broad national climate law with binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals and strong enforcement mechanisms would make environmental targets non-aspirational but enforceable. Institutional roles should be defined, deadlines set, and penalties for failure specified in this legislative framework. Second, the establishment of self-standing institutional frameworks, including separate climate authorities, is essential. These authorities need to be empowered with the ability to oversee emissions, gather data, prepare reports, and begin enforcement proceedings. These institutions’ technical competence and independence would protect climate governance from political vicissitudes. Third, the judiciary itself needs to embrace aggressive procedural measures such as periodic compliance hearings, framework of timelines for implementation, and the power to sanction willful non-compliance with environmental orders. Judgments can also order the formulation of elaborate action plans, the constitution of specialist committees, and regular reporting to monitor sustained accountability. Last but not least, participatory governance is essential to legitimacy and transparency. Engaging affected communities, environmental scientists, and civil society actors in decision-making—particularly for ecological restoration and surveillance—can enable inclusive, informed, and sustainable decisions. Combined, these steps would turn judicial decrees into concrete climate interventions.
CONCLUSION
India’s judiciary has emerged as a prime climate player: constituting novel rights, exercising environmental duty, and stemming ecological destruction. Yet the chasm between principle and practice is vast. In embracing effective remedial regimes, systematic compliance monitoring, and legislative support—with an eye to procedural equity and climate justice—the courts can trigger system transformation from law theory to green practice.
FAQs
Q1: Is climate action enforceable by Indian courts?
A: Yes, with Article 21 and PILs, courts enforce state compliance.
Q2: What is the role of the NGT in climate cases?
A: It hears environmental cases with a climate orientation.
Q3: How are Indian climate judgments positioned on the world stage?
A: They mirror worldwide trends but tend to lack enforcement power.
