Author: Harmanpreet Kaur
College: Panjab University, Chandigarh
LinkedIn Link: www.linkedin.com/in/preetharman47
TO THE POINT
Climate change is no longer a distant environmental concern discussed only in international conferences or scientific reports. Its effects are increasingly visible in everyday life through rising temperatures, prolonged heatwaves, unpredictable rainfall, floods, droughts, declining air quality, and the loss of biodiversity. In India, the consequences of climate change are particularly significant because of the country’s large population, diverse geography, and dependence on climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture. The Constitution does not expressly recognize a “right to a clean environment.” However, through progressive judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded Article 21 to include the right to live in a healthy, pollution-free, and ecologically balanced environment. Unlike traditional environmental disputes, climate litigation often seeks broader judicial directions requiring governments and public authorities to adopt stronger climate policies, implement existing environmental laws, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect vulnerable communities, and preserve natural resources for future generations. The Indian judiciary has played a transformative role in this process. Climate governance instead operates through a patchwork of older environmental statutes – the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – supplemented by policy instruments such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs), none of which carry the binding force of legislation.
This article examines climate change litigation as an evolving area of constitutional law rather than merely environmental regulation. It explores how constitutional principles have shaped judicial responses to climate-related challenges, analyses the contribution of environmental jurisprudence to climate governance, and evaluates whether litigation alone can provide an effective solution to one of the most complex global issues of our time.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Climate change litigation is built upon several constitutional and environmental law principles that have evolved through judicial interpretation and international environmental discourse.
One of the most significant constitutional principles governing environmental jurisprudence is the Right to a Healthy Environment, derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Although Article 21 expressly guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, judicial interpretation has consistently expanded its scope to include the right to live in a clean, healthy, and pollution-free environment.
Another important concept is sustainable development, which seeks to balance economic growth with environmental protection so that present developmental needs are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Indian courts have repeatedly recognized sustainable development as an integral part of constitutional governance, particularly in cases involving industrial development, mining, infrastructure projects, and natural resource management.
The precautionary principle also occupies a central position in environmental law. It requires public authorities to take preventive action where there is a credible risk of serious or irreversible environmental harm, even if complete scientific certainty is unavailable.
Closely connected to this is the polluter pays principle, under which the person or entity responsible for causing environmental damage must bear the cost of preventing, mitigating, and remedying that damage. This principle reflects both environmental responsibility and economic accountability, ensuring that the financial burden of environmental degradation is not shifted to society as a whole.
The public trust doctrine recognizes that certain natural resources – such as forests, rivers, lakes, wetlands, coastal areas, and wildlife are held by the State in trust for the benefit of the public. Consequently, governments have a constitutional obligation to protect these resources rather than exploit them in a manner inconsistent with public interest or environmental sustainability.
The concept of intergenerational equity recognizes that environmental decisions made today affect not only the present generation but also future generations. It requires governments to adopt policies that preserve ecological balance, biodiversity, and natural resources so that future citizens inherit an environment capable of sustaining human life and development.
THE PROOF
In recent years, climate-related cases have increasingly focused not only on pollution control or conservation but also on the broader responsibilities of governments to protect citizens from the adverse impacts of climate change. This shift reflects a growing understanding that environmental protection is inseparable from constitutional governance and human rights.
One of the most remarkable features of Indian environmental jurisprudence is that the Constitution does not expressly recognize a fundamental right to a healthy environment. Nevertheless, through progressive judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 by holding that the right to life includes the right to live in a clean, safe, and ecologically balanced environment. Article 48A, a Directive Principle of State Policy, requires the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Similarly, Article 51A (g) imposes a fundamental duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. Although neither provision is independently enforceable before a court, both have significantly influenced judicial reasoning.
An important reason for the growth of climate litigation in India has been the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Traditionally, only persons directly affected by a legal wrong could approach the courts. However, the liberalization of the rules of locus standi enabled environmental organizations, public-spirited individuals, and civil society groups to seek judicial intervention on behalf of communities affected by ecological degradation. The doctrine of sustainable development requires economic progress to be pursued without causing irreversible ecological harm. Rather than treating development and environmental protection as opposing goals, Indian courts have consistently sought to reconcile the two by insisting that developmental activities comply with environmental safeguards.
Equally significant is the precautionary principle, which has reshaped the judicial approach to environmental decision-making. Courts have recognized that environmental damage is often irreversible and that waiting for complete scientific certainty before taking preventive action may result in serious ecological consequences. The polluter pays principle reflects an important shift in environmental governance: instead of allowing society to absorb the economic consequences of pollution, liability is placed upon those whose activities contribute to environmental degradation.
Another important dimension of climate change litigation concerns intergenerational equity. Climate change is unlike many traditional legal disputes because its consequences extend beyond present generations. Decisions regarding natural resource management, industrial expansion, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions affect not only those living today but also future generations whose interests cannot be directly represented before the courts.
International developments have also influenced Indian climate jurisprudence. India is a party to global environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement, which emphasizes mitigation, adaptation, climate resilience, and international cooperation. Although such agreements do not automatically become enforceable domestic law, Indian courts have often referred to international environmental principles while interpreting constitutional provisions and environmental statutes. India’s approach differs from the mandatory-target model seen in Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, where the Dutch Supreme Court ordered a specific percentage emissions reduction, or Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, where the Lahore High Court directed the creation of a climate change commission with concrete implementation timelines. The Indian judiciary, by contrast, has so far preferred rights-recognition over target-setting – a more cautious posture that avoids direct encroachment on policy-making but also produces a right whose remedial content remains underspecified.
A further challenge lies in balancing economic development with environmental sustainability. Climate litigation therefore frequently involves competing public interests rather than a simple conflict between environmentalists and industry. Courts must carefully evaluate whether developmental projects comply with environmental safeguards, whether ecological damage has been adequately assessed, and whether less harmful alternatives are available. This balancing exercise demonstrates that climate litigation is fundamentally concerned with responsible governance rather than absolute environmental preservation.
Ultimately, climate change litigation has redefined the relationship between environmental protection and constitutional law in India. It demonstrates that environmental governance is no longer confined to administrative regulation but has become an essential component of protecting life, dignity, health, and sustainable development. Courts can ensure accountability, clarify constitutional obligations, and enforce environmental rights, but the long-term success of climate governance depends upon effective legislation, sound public policy, scientific innovation, and active civic participation.
ABSTRACT
Climate change litigation refers to legal proceedings in which individuals, communities, non-governmental organizations, or public authorities seek judicial intervention to address climate-related harms, enforce environmental obligations, or compel governmental action. Climate change litigation in India has transitioned from fragmented, localized environmental disputes into a robust, systemic frontier of constitutional governance and environmental justice. In the continuing absence of a single, umbrella climate legislation, the Indian judiciary – the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) – has relied on constitutional provisions such as Articles 14, 21, 48A, and 51A(g) to construct an increasingly assertive body of climate jurisprudence.
This article critically examines the evolution of climate change litigation in India through the lens of constitutional governance and environmental justice. It analyses the constitutional foundations of environmental protection, the contribution of judicial decisions in expanding the right to a healthy environment, and the role of principles such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle. The article further evaluates the opportunities and limitations of judicial intervention in addressing climate-related challenges while recognizing that long-term climate governance requires coordinated legislative, executive, and judicial action.
CASE LAWS
The development of climate change litigation in India cannot be understood without examining the landmark judgments through which the Supreme Court gradually expanded environmental rights under the Constitution.
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987)
A series of PILs filed by environmentalist M.C. Mehta addressed severe industrial pollution threatening the Taj Mahal, vehicular pollution in Delhi, and hazardous chemical leaks from industries located near residential areas. These cases laid the foundational architecture of modern Indian environmental law. In the Oleum Gas Leak case, the Supreme Court propounded the doctrine of Absolute Liability for hazardous industries, bypassing common law exceptions. In the Taj Trapezium and vehicular pollution cases, the court issued sweeping directions ordering industries to switch to cleaner fuels (natural gas) and mandating the conversion of public transport fleets to CNG, establishing the judiciary’s willingness to issue detailed administrative mandates to protect urban airsheds.
2. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996)
This judgment is widely regarded as one of the most influential environmental decisions delivered by the Supreme Court. The dispute concerned pollution caused by leather tanneries in Tamil Nadu. While addressing the issue, the Court formally recognized two internationally accepted principles as part of Indian environmental law:
• the Precautionary Principle, and
• the Polluter Pays Principle.
The Court further held that Sustainable Developmentforms an integral part of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
3. Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India (Ongoing)
The case filed originally in 2017 before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) by a minor environmental activist from Uttarakhand, the petition argued that India’s existing environmental policies and enforcement mechanisms were woefully inadequate to meet global carbon emission reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. The petitioner invoked the Public Trust Doctrine, intergenerational equity, and the precautionary principle. In recent hearings, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to compile comprehensive rules and regulations concerning carbon emissions, impleaded multiple key ministries to break institutional silos, and acknowledged the pressing need to scrutinize statutory frameworks through a climate-centric lens.
4. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (2024)
Initiated as a public interest petition under Article 32 by conservationists seeking protection for the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) in Rajasthan and Gujarat, the case challenged the installation of overhead electrical transmission lines associated with renewable energy projects (solar and wind farms), which were causing fatal collisions for the birds. The Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change is a distinct, enforceable right under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. The court reasoned that climate change alters weather patterns, causes food insecurity, and threatens human survival, meaning that marginalized communities and future generations suffer disproportionately.
CONCLUSION
Climate change litigation in India has evolved from an ad hoc, reactive mechanism for controlling localized industrial pollution into a sophisticated, constitutionalized discipline of public law. Through imaginative judicial craftsmanship, Indian courts have woven international environmental norms, public trust obligations, and fundamental rights into an interconnected framework where ecological degradation is recognized as a direct violation of human dignity, equality, and life itself.
The future of climate litigation in India is therefore likely to depend upon constructive institutional cooperation rather than judicial intervention alone. As climate-related challenges continue to intensify, constitutional principles will increasingly guide legislative reforms, administrative decision-making, and judicial review. To achieve true environmental justice, India requires a comprehensive, statutory climate change framework enacted by Parliament – one that establishes binding carbon budgets, streamlines multi-ministerial coordination, ensures a just transition for fossil-fuel-dependent communities, and empowers specialized regulatory bodies. Until such legislative resolve solidifies, the Indian judiciary will undoubtedly remain the primary bulwark defending present citizens and unborn generations against the gathering storms of the climate crisis.
FREQUENTLY ASKED FACTUAL QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q1. What is “genre-bending” in reference to Indian climate litigation?
A. “Genre-bending” refers to the unique phenomenon where climate change claims in India are frequently litigated under the guise of traditional environmental, wildlife, or pollution disputes—such as petitions challenging urban air pollution, deforestation, wetland reclamation, or industrial toxic waste. These cases tackle the underlying drivers of the climate polycrisis even when they are not formally titled as “climate change lawsuits.”
Q2. Does India have a dedicated climate change law?
A. No. India currently governs climate-related concerns through a combination of older environmental statutes (the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Air Act, 1981, the Water Act, 1974, and others) and non-binding policy instruments such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change, rather than a single, enforceable climate statute comparable to the UK’s Climate Change Act, 2008.
Q3. Can an ordinary citizen file a climate-related case in India?
A. Yes. India’s liberalized public interest litigation framework allows any public-spirited individual, including minors acting through a guardian, to approach the High Courts or Supreme Court, or the NGT, on environmental and climate matters without needing to show direct personal injury.
Q4. How is the “right against adverse effects of climate change” different from the earlier “right to a clean environment”?
A. The right to a clean environment, recognized since the early 1990s, primarily addresses pollution and localizedenvironmental degradation. The newer right articulated in Ranjitsinh is framed specifically around the systemic, long-term harms of climate change and rests additionally on Article 14’s equality guarantee, in recognition of climate change’s disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups.
