Abstract
Climate change litigation has emerged as a critical mechanism for advancing environmental justice in India. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in recognizing climate change as a constitutional and environmental issue, linking it to the rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598, 1991; Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, 1996). Known globally for its progressive environmental jurisprudence, the Indian judiciary is gradually shaping climate jurisprudence as well. Given India’s vulnerability to climate risks, judicial interventions are likely to expand in the future.
Scope of the Study
This paper examines the current landscape of climate litigation in India, the application of international environmental principles such as the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), 1992), and the role of institutions like the National Green Tribunal.
Key Themes Addressed
- Climate change as a constitutional and environmental issue
- Judicial recognition of the right to life and equality in environmental contexts
- Application of international environmental law principles
- Institutional role of the National Green Tribunal
- Restorative justice as an emerging approach to climate harms
Conclusion and Recommendations
It also considers restorative justice as an emerging approach to address climate harms. The study concludes with recommendations for strengthening climate governance through judicial and legislative reforms.
Introduction
Environmental justice (EJ) is grounded in the principle that environmental benefits and burdens must be distributed fairly, ensuring that marginalized groups are not disproportionately exposed to ecological degradation or climate impacts (Schlosberg, 2007). In the Indian context, climate change has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities: farmers face crop failures due to erratic monsoons, coastal communities confront sea-level rise, and urban slum dwellers endure intensified heatwaves and air pollution without adequate protection (IPCC, 2021).
The Indian judiciary has acted as a constitutional guardian in this sphere, stepping in when executive authorities failed to enforce environmental protections. Through the liberalization of standing in Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the courts have allowed citizens, academics, and NGOs to advocate for affected communities (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), 1981). This innovation has enabled systemic challenges against projects and policies harmful to the environment.
The establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010 further strengthened judicial capacity. With expertise in environmental science, the NGT can issue preventive and remedial orders swiftly. In Ankita Sinha v. Union of India (2021) 15 SCC 294 (2021), the Supreme Court affirmed the NGT’s power to take suo motu cognizance of environmental matters, positioning it as an active climate watchdog.
Together, PIL and the NGT have placed the judiciary at the center of India’s climate governance framework. By interpreting Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as encompassing the right to a clean and sustainable environment, the judiciary has laid the foundation for recognizing climate justice as a constitutional mandate (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598, 1991). (Schlosberg, 2007; IPCC, 2021)
Climate Litigation: Framing the Issue
Climate litigation refers to the use of legal processes to hold governments, corporations, or individuals accountable for contributing to climate change or failing to mitigate its effects. In India, this field has evolved from traditional environmental law into a specialized branch that addresses systemic and large-scale harms caused by climate inaction.
Initially, Indian courts heard cases related to localized environmental issues such as factory pollution, deforestation, and hazardous waste disposal (Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 652), 1985). However, with the intensification of climate impacts, petitions began challenging broader governance failures—such as weak emission-control policies, insufficient renewable energy initiatives, and the lack of preparedness for disasters like floods and heatwaves (Rajamani, 2007).
Key Features of Climate Litigation in India
- Rights-Based Framing: Petitioners increasingly invoke Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life), arguing that state inaction on climate change violates fundamental rights (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598, 1991).
- Integration of Legal Principles: Courts apply doctrines such as sustainable development, precautionary principle, and intergenerational equity, harmonizing Indian law with international obligations like the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2015) (2015) and Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) (1992).
- Judicial Innovation: Indian judges often go beyond traditional remedies, issuing compliance committees, monitoring orders, and continuing mandamus writs (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, AIR 1987 SC 1086), Oleum Gas Leak, 1987).
- Shift to Systemic Responsibility: While early cases targeted individual polluters, recent litigation focuses on entire policy frameworks—for example, challenges to inadequate air quality regulation in urban areas or weak renewable energy planning (M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 251, 2024).
Thus, climate litigation in India has evolved into a constitutional mechanism compelling the executive to adopt stronger climate policies. It ensures that economic development does not compromise ecological sustainability or the fundamental rights of citizens. (Rajamani, 2007)
Usage of International Principles in Environmental Litigation
Indian courts have frequently drawn upon international environmental law to strengthen domestic jurisprudence. This practice reflects the judiciary’s willingness to internalize global principles in the absence of specific climate legislation.
One of the landmark cases, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 (1996), officially adopted the precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, and sustainable development, drawing from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) (1992). These principles are now firmly embedded in Indian constitutional law.
Similarly, references to the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment (1972) (1972) underscore the global recognition of the right to a healthy environment, while the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2015) (2015) is frequently invoked to emphasize India’s international commitments in addressing climate change (Rajamani, 2016).
Functions of International Environmental Principles
- The precautionary principle ensures preventive action before irreversible harm occurs.
- The polluter pays principle mandates economic liability on polluters for restoration and mitigation.
- The doctrine of sustainable development reconciles economic growth with ecological protection.
By incorporating such international norms, Indian courts have ensured that even in the absence of a comprehensive climate law, state actions are consistent with global climate justice standards. (Rajamani, 2016)
Public Interest Litigation and Environmental Litigation
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been the cornerstone of environmental and climate jurisprudence in India. Unlike traditional litigation, PIL does not require the petitioner to demonstrate direct harm, thereby enabling citizens, activists, and organizations to advocate on behalf of affected communities and ecosystems (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), 1981).
The judiciary has repeatedly affirmed the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the right to life under Article 21. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598 (1991), the Supreme Court held that the right to a pollution-free environment flows directly from constitutional guarantees. Similarly, in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 652) (1985), the Court halted limestone quarrying in ecologically fragile areas, recognizing the need to prevent irreversible environmental harm.
Through continuing mandamus orders, courts have monitored compliance with environmental standards over extended periods, thereby ensuring sustained implementation rather than one-time directives (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, AIR 1987 SC 1086), series of cases). This procedural flexibility has made PILs effective in tackling state inaction on issues such as climate adaptation, air pollution control, and biodiversity preservation.
Thus, PIL has evolved into a powerful tool of climate governance in India, allowing courts to step in where executive inaction threatens constitutional rights and environmental sustainability (Baxi, 1985; Dhavan, 1990).
Tort Law Principles in Environmental Litigation
Indian environmental jurisprudence has drawn significantly from tort law, but the judiciary has constitutionalized these principles, extending them to climate-related cases where explicit statutory provisions may be absent.
1. Absolute Liability
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, AIR 1987 SC 1086) (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987), the Court established that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are absolutely liable for any harm caused, regardless of negligence or unforeseen circumstances.
This goes beyond the traditional strict liability doctrine in Rylands v. Fletcher. In climate contexts, this means industries emitting greenhouse gases may be held accountable even if they comply with regulatory permits.
2. Polluter Pays Principle
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212 (1996), the Court ruled that polluters must bear the financial cost of preventing and remediating environmental harm.
Applied to climate change, this supports carbon pricing and obliges high-emission industries to contribute to adaptation and mitigation funds.
3. Public Trust Doctrine
In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 (1997), the Court held that the State is a trustee of natural resources and cannot allow their exploitation for private purposes.
This principle underpins judicial scrutiny of government approvals for carbon-intensive projects or developments in ecologically sensitive areas.
4. Sustainable Development and Intergenerational Equity
Recognized in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996), these principles require balancing current developmental needs with the rights of future generations to a safe and healthy environment.
By embedding these doctrines in constitutional law, Indian courts have ensured that climate justice remains enforceable even without explicit climate legislation.
Scope of Judicial Review in Climate Litigation
Judicial review serves as a critical mechanism for ensuring government accountability in climate governance. Indian courts have expanded the scope of review from project-level scrutiny to policy-level evaluation.
1. From Projects to Policies
While earlier cases focused on halting specific polluting industries, recent judgments have examined whether national energy and climate policies align with constitutional guarantees.
For instance, in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 251 (2024), the Supreme Court directed that renewable energy projects safeguard biodiversity.
2. Reliance on Scientific Evidence
Courts increasingly demand robust, evidence-based climate assessments—such as emissions data, biodiversity loss, and disaster risks—before granting project approvals (Lafarge Umiam Mining v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338, 2011).
3. Institutional Innovations
The Supreme Court in Ankita Sinha (2021) held that the National Green Tribunal has the authority to take suo motu action in urgent environmental matters.
This expands judicial oversight beyond conventional adversarial litigation.
4. International Standards
Courts refer to global climate agreements, particularly the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2015) (2015), as benchmarks to assess whether state action is adequate.
Failure to align with such commitments may be deemed arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Through this broadened judicial review, Indian courts not only ensure procedural compliance but also assess the adequacy and fairness of state climate action.
Climate Litigation in India
Indian courts have addressed diverse forms of climate-related disputes, ranging from renewable energy conflicts to biodiversity conservation:
- In M.K. Ranjitsinh (2024), the Court directed underground cabling of power lines to protect the Great Indian Bustard, balancing clean energy generation with species conservation.
- Drawing from the Oleum Gas Leak (1987) and Vellore (1996) principles, courts compelled Delhi to shift its public transport fleet to CNG, reducing vehicular emissions.
- In Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496 (2001), the Court invoked the Public Trust Doctrine to restore village ponds, enhancing resilience to floods and droughts.
- Strict Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) have been mandated for large-scale industrial and energy projects, with expert panels often constituted to assess long-term climate impacts.
- Courts have ensured proper utilization of compensatory afforestation funds, directing that such resources contribute to ecological restoration rather than unrelated purposes.
These cases reflect the judiciary’s proactive stance in integrating climate considerations into environmental governance.
Climate Litigation And Restorative Justice
India’s courts have increasingly adopted restorative justice practices in environmental court cases, with a focus on rehabilitation of the environment and community healing over punishment alone.
Judicial Use Of Restorative Measures
- In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996), industries were directed to fund the removal of contaminated sites.
- Courts have directed interventions such as afforestation, watershed management, and community-based adaptation measures following climate damages.
Restorative justice guarantees that impacted communities are central to the decision-making process, and that the solutions foster social equity and environmental sustainability. Such an approach is consistent with international movements that prioritize participatory and rehabilitative methods within climate justice.
Way Forward For Climate Litigation In India
Although judicial activism has made considerable progress in promoting climate justice in India, numerous reforms are necessary to ensure stable and efficient governance:
Key Reforms Required
- Inclusive Climate Law: Incorporating into legislation such values as sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and intergenerational equity would strengthen the basis for judicial decisions.
- Compulsory Climate-Risk Assessments: Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) should include climate vulnerability assessments, thus quantitatively assessing the long-term risks to ecosystems and communities.
- Institutionalizing The NGT: Permanent panels of economists, ecologists, and climate scientists would enable the tribunal to make more expert judgments.
- Statutory Duty Of Adaptation: State and local authorities must have a statutory duty to implement flood, drought, and urban heat stress adaptation plans, enforceable in the courts.
- Mechanisms For Compliance: Using satellite monitoring, live pollution information, and ongoing judicial monitoring would instill more accountability.
- Corporate Responsibility: Companies’ mandatory climate-risk disclosures would make business operations compatible with India’s net-zero targets.
These are collectively going to change India’s climate governance, from court-led interventions to a complete multi-branch regime.
Conclusion
In the last four decades, the Indian judiciary has moved from the resolution of discrete environmental problems to developing a legal system of climate justice. With the application of principles like absolute liability, precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, and public trust, the courts have provided just treatment to generations yet to come and held the government and private actors accountable.
Historic court decisions show that judges can galvanize climate policy, forcing governments to include science, international law, and core values in their decisions. However, wise judicial oversight will not replace strong laws. Without transparent laws and mechanisms for applying them, court decisions might be only theatre.
The path forward is to reconcile judicial creativity with institutional change—tougher EIAs, requiring corporate climate reporting, strengthening monitoring systems, and locating adaptation obligations in the law. Then India may construct a unified and robust climate justice regime that safeguards current and future generations.
References
- Baxi, U. (1985). Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India.
- Dhavan, R. (1990). Litigation Explosion in India.
- IPCC. (2021). Sixth Assessment Report.
- Rajamani, L. (2007). Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability.
- Rajamani, L. (2016). India’s Approach to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2015): Between Pragmatism and Idealism.
- Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice.
Written By
- Laxmi Priya, 4th year student at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, pursuing B.A. LL.B. She has a strong interest in legal writing and research and endeavours to contribute meaningfully to the legal community. Contact: [email protected]
Case Law
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak), AIR 1987 SC 1086.
- Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
- M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 251.
- Lafarge Umiam Mining v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338.
- Ankita Sinha v. Union of India, (2021) 15 SCC 294.
- Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496.
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 652.
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
International Instruments
- Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992.
- Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, 1972.
- Paris Agreement on Climate Change, 2015.
