By – Khushi Choudhary
Abstract
The article focuses on how environmental jurisprudence in India has evolved with the move from an approach which includes the elements of ecology without directly stating so to an approach based on climate change. It discusses how the judicial system in India has dealt with environmental issues within the larger framework of the right to life mentioned in Article 21 of the constitution. The issue of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine are among the principles that have been developed.
Introduction
Traditional policy measures are failing to keep up with the global climate emergency, and courts around the world are witnessing a dramatic rise in climate litigation. This legal shift is especially complicated in India. While the country currently ranks as the world’s third-largest emitter, its vast population also remains exceptionally vulnerable to the severe physical impacts of global warming.The need for fast economic development and energy security alongside the aim to protect the environment in the long run are often at odds. The issue is further compounded by a massive legislative deficiency since India has no climate legislation at the level of the country. The judiciary has acted in an anticipatory manner by making use of the strong PIL system in India to put pressure on the state. This article traces the evolution of climate litigation in India from early instances where the courts have indirectly protected the environment to current decisions where the judiciary has declared climate rights under the Constitution.
Constitutional Foundations and the ‘Peripheral’ Era of Climate Claims
The jurisprudence of the environment in India is premised on an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana. ,the Supreme Court of India held that Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) includes the right to a healthy environment. Article 48A Article 48A requires the state to take steps for protecting and improving the environment, while Article 51A(g) confers upon citizens the fundamental duty to protect the natural environment.
From the 1990s through the early 2000s, fundamental Indian judicial rulings, which included the M. C. Mehta rulings related to the Taj Trapezium Zone and vehicular emissions as well as the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case, successfully brought international environmental principles into Indian legislation. Through the use of these rulings, fundamental ideas, such as the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, and sustainable development, were all established as core components of Indian environmental law. Nevertheless, the issue of climate change remained a rather peripheral one during this time. Even though there were petitions that indirectly contributed to climate protection, namely those related to vehicular emissions, coal mining, and deforestation, the petitioners did not rely on scientific evidence and information relating to climate change in any way. The petitioners’ main legal arguments focused on traditional environmental concerns, thus excluding climate change from legal proceedings.
M.K. Ranjitsinh Ruling and the ‘Green vs. Green’ Dilemma
It would not be unfair to say that the evolution of Indian environmental jurisprudence to enable climate litigation received a major boost with the decision of the Supreme Court of India in M.K Ranjitsinh& Ors v Union of India. The very essence of the case stemmed from an initiative taken by the Government of India for the protection of Great Indian Bustards against collision with power lines. This was the reason behind the Government approaching the Court to revisit its order of 2021 regarding burying of such cables below the surface. Authorities argued that the mandate was prohibitively expensive, logistically impossible, and might hinder the country’s shift to renewables along with jeopardizing the commitments made under the Paris Agreement.
In this situation, the Supreme Court found itself facing a tricky “green versus green” situation where it had to weigh the urgency of preserving a particular bird species against the need to urgently set up infrastructure for solar and wind energy in order to address climate change. While delivering the verdict, Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud established a brand-new constitutional safeguard: the right of protection against the negative impacts of climate change. This right was established under Article 21 (right to life) and, more importantly, under Article 14 (right to equality). It is important to note that while establishing the right to equality, the Court pointed out that those who suffer the most from climate change are the poor and marginalized communities who contribute least to emissions.
Ultimately, it became clear that the Indian Supreme Court decided to narrow the wide ban on the installation of power lines, preferring the country’s shift towards renewables. It was stated that the sub-surface laying of the cables will be obligatory only in a significantly reduced priority area of about 13,163 square kilometres. Despite the fact that the Ranjitsinh judgment has been perceived by many as a breakthrough in terms of climate rights, it has been extensively criticized by many academics. According to the Critics, this decision is still human-centered and does not question the arguments presented by the government about the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the decision.It has been noted that the Observers have accused the Supreme Court can be described to “speak green and act grey,” since there is an irony in the fact that the judiciary gave permission to construct facilities whose construction would directly threaten an endangered bird species.
2025–2026 Developments: Ridhima Pandey and Systemic Accountability
Though the decision in Ranjitsinh provided a judicial recognition of the constitutional provisions protecting the climate, the ongoing litigation in the case of Ridhima Pandey in the period from 2025 to 2026 operationalizes the rights through combating governmental apathy towards them. The case emerged in 2017 when Ridhima Pandey, who at that time was nine years old, filed a petition before the National Green Tribunal, arguing that the efforts undertaken by India to reduce global warming are significantly insufficient and advocating the assessment of climate threats through Environmental Impact Assessment.
However, while conducting the appeals process in 2025, the Supreme Court took up an extremely contrasting position. Criticizing the weaknesses inherent to the current legal system, the Supreme Court stated that the conventional local pollution laws cannot be applicable to such a vast generational aspect of climate change legislation. Highlighting the huge gap in accountability, the Supreme Court ordered to stop the extremely fragmented approach of the government. To ensure that there is proper coordination between different agencies, eight central ministries were involved in the process by the Supreme Court. Showing an extremely proactive approach in the case of Ridhima Pandey, the Supreme Court issued a directive in July 2025 that required the power ministry to file a joint affidavit on a definite national strategy to cut down carbon emissions.
This type of litigatory campaign makes India align on a path similar to those followed by other notable international cases such as Urgenda in the Netherlands and Juliana in the United States, where citizens have been forcing their government to take systematic climate actions. It seems extremely probable for the advocates in India to use the existing and future advisory opinions issued by organizations such as International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in order to ensure that India’s international obligations regarding climate change are fulfilled domestically. This is because there has been an increase in the number of climate lawsuits in India to fourteen according to the UNEP report and the Sabin Center.
Conclusion
In the last ten years, the Indian legal landscape of climate litigation has seen a massive paradigm shift. The Indian Supreme Court has established that what have been treated until now as second-rate policy issues are, in reality, constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. It all comes as a result of important rulings like M. K. Ranjitsinh and the continuous efforts seen in the Ridhima Pandey case where courts must oblige the government to act in order to cover up its accountability gap and make the necessary moves. Nevertheless, the use of the judiciary to solve climate change issues will inevitably run into many structural obstacles. Although the judiciary may act as an effective tool for enhancing accountability, it lacks the ability to develop elaborate mitigation schemes, introduce national carbon prices, or access the necessary budget. After all, if India is going to protect its most vulnerable citizens and reach its goal of achieving net-zero emissions in 2070, it needs to use judicial methods to pass an effective climate change law at the national level through Parliament.
About The Author
Khushi Choudhary is in her final year of law school at O.P Jindal Global University. Her research interests lie in the area of Environmental law, along with constitutional law.