Author: Abhinav Mishra, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University
To the Point
Climate change litigation has rapidly emerged as a critical legal strategy in the global effort to combat environmental degradation and climate inaction. Courts worldwide are now central to enforcing climate obligations—whether against governments that fail to meet their international commitments or corporations that misrepresent their sustainability credentials. This evolving area of law intersects environmental rights with constitutional guarantees, human rights obligations, tort principles, and corporate responsibility frameworks. The rising caseload and diversity of climate-related lawsuits signal a paradigm shift: from policy advocacy to judicial enforcement.
Use of Legal Jargon
In legal discourse, climate change litigation engages a range of complex concepts. Plaintiffs often rely on strategic litigation to push for systemic reforms or judicial precedents. Causes of action include tortious liability (e.g., negligence, nuisance, strict liability), violations of fundamental rights, and breaches of international environmental agreements. The judiciary, in turn, applies doctrines such as the public trust doctrine, polluter pays principle, intergenerational equity, and sustainable development. In cases involving corporations, courts increasingly examine fiduciary duties, duty of care, and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. Remedies sought range from injunctive relief to mandatory emissions reduction orders and compensatory damages.
The Proof
Empirical data backs the assertion that climate change litigation is on the rise. According to the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, over 2,500 cases have been filed in more than 65 jurisdictions by the end of 2023—nearly double the number from 2015. These lawsuits increasingly focus not only on environmental damage but on the failure to mitigate or adapt to climate risks, which is often framed as a violation of constitutional or human rights.
The legal argument commonly made is that state inaction on climate policy violates the right to life, right to health, or right to a clean environment—all protected under various national constitutions and human rights instruments. In India, for instance, the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution has provided fertile ground for environmental and climate litigation. Similarly, courts in Europe, South America, and Asia have recognized climate obligations as enforceable rights, often invoking international law, including the Paris Agreement, as a benchmark for governmental accountability.
Abstract
Climate change litigation is no longer the domain of mere environmental regulation—it is becoming an essential mechanism for climate governance. It empowers citizens, NGOs, and even youth activists to demand accountability from states and corporations. This article analyzes the trajectory of climate change litigation globally and in India, examining its legal foundations, strategic significance, and emerging jurisprudence. It explores how courts are increasingly recognizing climate harm as a justiciable issue, subject to judicial scrutiny under constitutional, statutory, and common law frameworks. The piece also assesses landmark cases that have shaped the legal landscape and evaluates how such litigation has influenced policymaking, corporate behavior, and public discourse.
Case Laws
Urgenda Foundation v. The Netherlands (2019)
In this groundbreaking judgment, the Dutch Supreme Court held that the government had violated its citizens’ rights under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by failing to reduce carbon emissions adequately. The court ordered the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% compared to 1990 levels by 2020. This case set a precedent by establishing that climate change mitigation is not merely a policy preference but a legal obligation grounded in human rights law.
Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021)
In a historic decision, the Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its global CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. The ruling was based on the duty of care under Dutch tort law and international human rights standards. Notably, this was the first time a court imposed legally binding emission reductions on a private corporation. The court found that Shell’s climate policy was insufficiently concrete and therefore breached its legal obligations.
Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015)
The Lahore High Court recognized climate change as a serious threat to fundamental rights, including the rights to life and dignity. The court found the Pakistani government’s delay in implementing its climate change policy unconstitutional and directed the creation of a Climate Change Commission. This case invoked the public trust doctrine and recognized the principle of intergenerational equity, reinforcing the idea that governments hold natural resources in trust for future generations.
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India
Filed by a nine-year-old climate activist, this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) argued that the Indian government’s inadequate action on climate change violated its constitutional and international obligations. The petitioner cited the Paris Agreement, the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and Article 21 of the Constitution. Although dismissed by the NGT, it reflects the growing trend of youth-led climate litigation in India.
Greenpeace Nordic v. Government of Norway (2020)
Environmental groups challenged the Norwegian government’s decision to allow oil exploration in the Arctic, arguing it violated constitutional environmental rights and the Paris Agreement. While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, the case significantly contributed to the legal debate on climate-compatible governance and state fiduciary duties.
Conclusion
Climate change litigation is no longer a niche area—it is now an integral component of global climate governance. Courts are progressively holding governments and corporations accountable for both action and inaction. Legal doctrines once confined to environmental law are now being adapted to fit the climate crisis. In India, where environmental protection is embedded in the constitutional framework, there is tremendous potential for judicial activism to further climate justice.
Litigation also has a ripple effect: it influences policy, shapes corporate ESG strategies, and galvanizes public opinion. However, challenges remain, including legal standing, evidentiary burdens, and political resistance. As climate risks intensify, so will legal demands for justice, fairness, and accountability. Climate change litigation is not just a legal remedy—it is becoming a moral imperative and democratic necessity.
FAQ
Q1: What is climate change litigation?
A: It refers to lawsuits that seek to hold governments, corporations, or institutions accountable for contributing to or failing to address climate change. These may be based on constitutional, statutory, tort, or international law grounds.
Q2: What is greenwashing, and how is it legally challenged?
A: Greenwashing is when companies misrepresent their environmental practices or products. It can be challenged under consumer protection laws, advertising regulations, or securities laws (for misleading ESG disclosures).
Q3: Can individuals sue the government for climate inaction?
A: Yes. In many jurisdictions, individuals or groups can file cases alleging violation of constitutional rights or statutory duties. Examples include Urgenda (Netherlands) and Leghari (Pakistan).
Q4: What doctrines support climate litigation in India?
A: Indian courts use doctrines like:
– Public Trust Doctrine
– Precautionary Principle
– Polluter Pays Principle
– Sustainable Development
– Intergenerational Equity
Q5: What role does international law play?
A: Treaties like the Paris Agreement influence domestic law and policy. Courts often use them as interpretive tools to assess state compliance with climate obligations.
