Published On: August 19th 2025
Authored By: Saloni Shikha
Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Introduction
Climate change has become an important legal challenge in India, connecting issues in the environment, society, and economy. India, being one of the most vulnerable countries to climate risks, deals with rising heat, unpredictable monsoons, coastal damage, and severe weather, all of which threaten jobs, food supplies, and essential infrastructure. To address these problems, climate lawsuits are becoming more common, accusing corporations and governments of causing environmental damage or failing to take action. Such legal actions support global climate goals like the Paris Agreement, safeguard fundamental rights and enhance the environmental legislation. These situations are particularly important in India since it is difficult to strike a balance between the need to preserve natural resources and rapid economic expansion. Important cases like MC Mehta vs. Union of India in 1986 and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India in 1996 introduced ideas like the ‘polluter pays’ rule and the ‘precautionary principle’, which still play a big role in climate law today.
Legal Framework Supporting Climate Litigation in India:
1. Constitutional Provisions- India’s constitution gives strong support to climate-related legal actions using its fundamental rights and guiding principles. Article 21A of the constitution, giving the right to life and personal freedom, is seen by courts to also mean theright to a clean and healthy environment. In the Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)[1], the Supreme Court stated that living a healthy life also includes having clean water and air, creating a key reference for environmental cases. This idea now extends to climate change issues held in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others, Union of India (2024), the court acknowledged a constitutional right to live without harmful climate effects based on Article 21 and Article 14, which ensures equality. This important judgment highlighted the need to safeguard marginalised groups such as tribal communities.
Moreover, Article 48A[2] directs the government to protect and better the environment, and Article 51A(g)[3]asks citizens to care for nature. Together, these rules give legal and ethical backing to climate lawsuits, letting courts approach climate problems through the lens of individual rights.
2. Some important environmental laws- India’s environmental laws, although not created to handle climate change, play an essential role in the legal system to address climate cases.
- The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986[4]: This law is a key framework for environmental rules in India. It gives central and state governments the authority to improve environmental conditions and manage pollution. People often use it in climate lawsuits to tackle problems like factory emissions and damage to the environment that feed into climate change.
- The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981[5]: This law focuses on fighting air pollution and includes rules for controlling emissions from factories and vehicles. Since air pollution is tied to greenhouse gases, this act allows individuals to push back against activities that release excessive emissions. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570.
- The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974[6]: This law aims to prevent water pollution and tackles challenges like water shortages and floods, which become worse due to climate change. It gives pollution control boards the authority to set and enforce water quality rules.
- The National Green Tribunal Act,2010[7]:This act created the National Green Tribunal (NGT), a court tasked with resolving environmental complaints was established by this statute. The NGT plays a key role in dealing with issues like managing forest fires and encouraging the use of renewable energy. It provides a quicker and simpler way to seek justice for climate-related problems.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a tool for justice- Public Interest Litigation is big in moving climate fairness ahead in India. It lets people, fighters, and groups go to court for all, even if they are not the ones hurt. This way helps make fairness open to all. This has been key in dealing with climate matters, like fixing what the government did not do or battling company dirt. Some big cases show this well:
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India (2017)[8], a nine year old girl, filed a PIL with the NGT arguing that India’s commitment under the Paris Agreement and existing environmental laws need greater climate action. Although the case was dismissed, it highlighted PIL’s potential to raise climate issues. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (2019)[9], this PIL asked the court to make sure that local climate action plans were put in place, demonstrating the PIL’s role in holding governments accountable.
4. Role of International Commitments- India’s climate promises under international agreements strengthen the legal groundwork used in climate litigation. By joining the Paris Agreement (2015), India committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and building climate resilience as outlined in its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These include boosting renewable energy and reaching net-zero emissions by 2070.
In Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India (2017), the plaintiff referred to India’s Paris Agreement promises to call for stricter climate measures. Likewise, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) sets rules on transparency and accountability,
which courts use to evaluate failures in action by authorities. Cases like M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India show how courts acknowledge these commitments as essential in climate cases. Still, enforcing them is tough because of other developmental needs that compete for focus.
India’s legal setup for climate lawsuits is complex. It includes constitutional rights, environmental regulations, global pledges, and PIL cases. Courts play a big role. Decisions like M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India and the NGT’s unique authority create a solid foundation for tackling climate issues. Yet, the system and courts focus on environmental rights, keeping India important in global climate legal efforts.
Emerging Trend in Climate Change Litigation in India
India is witnessing rapid growth in climate change lawsuits as the country grapples with environmental harm and its impact on people and the financial aspects. Other lawsuits are about making companies pay for the pollution they cause. Weak groups are using the courts to keep their surroundings safe. More and more young climate fighters are pushing for action. These trends show India’s weak spots with climate issues while still trying to move forward and keep the environment safe.
1. Rise in Cases against Government inaction on climate policies
Lawsuits targeting government inaction have become a noticeable pattern in India’s climate litigation. People rely on public interest litigations to push the government to implement stronger climate policies. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India from 2019. In this case, the petitioner asked for judicial orders to ensure that state governments created and enforced climate plans in line with India’s Paris Agreement commitments. These cases reveal growing public anger over slow policy action as India faces serious climate issues like heat waves, unpredictable monsoons and many more.
2. Youth-led Activism
Youth-led climate activism is shaping legal battles around climate change, with creative strategies being led by youthful plaintiffs, as we have seen in the case of Ridhima Pandey v the Union of India. Similar case worldwide, like Juliana v. United States, shows parallels with India’s youth-driven approach. These young activists are bringing attention to marginalised groups and advocating for science-aligned policies, yet courts often struggle to keep up due to issues like crowded dockets and a lack of expertise in climate-related matters.
3. Community-driven lawsuit by a Vulnerable group
Community-based suits by marginalised sections, including farmers and coastal communities, are the new trend in India’s climate litigation. These communities suffer disproportionately from climate effects, e.g., droughts impacting agriculture and rising sea levels imperilling coastal livelihoods. Proceedings before the NGT tend to involve concerns such as coastal erosion, mangrove destruction, or loss of agriculture, presenting climate change as an infringement on the right to life under Article 21.
Landmark and Recent Case Laws
The courts in India have played a significant role in protecting the environment through landmark cases. In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1985-1987), many public court cases (PILs) took on big eco issues. The Bhopal gas leak case brought in absolute liability, making factories pay for eco harm and giving money to those hurt. The Ganga pollution case led to the shutdown of dirty tanneries and the creation of clean-up sites, tying eco care to rights in law under Articles 48A and 51A(g). These steps set rules for how plants must act and aid in battles against climate troubles by tackling pollution, a key cause of climate harm.
1. M.C Mehta v Union of India (1985-1987)
The MC Mehta v. Union of India[10] PILs dealt with many green issues, and two big cases were seen as very important for shaping green law: Bhopal Gas Leak Case (1985)[11]: After a bad gas leak at Shriram Foods caused one person to die and many others to get hurt, the Supreme Court set the absolute liability rule. This rule says that firms must fully answer for green damage, even if they weren’t careless. This was a big shift from the old rules of liability. This case, by focusing on the harm from factory pollution, helps fight for climate laws by dealing with the emissions that contribute to global warming.
2. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996)
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[12], the Supreme Court looked at how tanneries harmed the River Palar. This hurt 35,000 hectares of land used for farming and drinking water spots. The court found a way to keep both the environment safe and let jobs grow. They made each tannery pay Rs. 10,000 and gave Rs. 50,000 to the ones who asked for help to stand up for the planet. This case put two big ideas into Indian law: first, the precautionary principle means taking steps to stop harm to the earth when we’re not sure what could go wrong, and the polluter pays principle. This makes those who harm nature pay for the damage. These rules are key for dealing with climate change in court, as they let us hold companies or groups accountable for their part in harming our world.
Recent Climate-Specific Case
M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India (2024)[13]
The Supreme Court led by former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, recognised a basic right to be safe from the bad things that come with climate change, taken from Articles 14 (right to be equal), 21 (right to life), 48A, and 51A(g). The court pointed out the “mess made by climate change,” like dirty air, sickness spread by bugs, and hot weather getting hotter. It also stressed how bad climate change is for fairness, saying that groups on the edges, like people living in forests and native groups, are hurt more by it.
Challenges and Limitations in Climate Change Litigation
1. Absence of Dedicated Climate Law
India does not have a full law for climate change, but uses a mix of other environmental laws and parts of its main laws. The main laws are the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. These laws were made before the world really started talking about climate change, and they do not talk about greenhouse gas or special climate-related things. The Supreme Court’s Ruling in the case M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India saw a big gap; there is no big, all-around law for climate issues.
2. Litigation Barrier
a. Judicial Backlog- India’s courts have a big pile of cases waiting, with over 5.8 million still to be seen in high courts. This leads to long waits to close cases Judicial Backlog. This pile-up touches cases about the environment, including those on climate, by slowing down fast actions needed to deal with pressing climate issues.
b. Judiciary and Executive Policy- Courts show respect to government plans, more so when these plans help the nation grow. In the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh, the Supreme Court weighed the rights to a clean world against the need for new roads and buildings. They let a power project go on even though it could hurt nature. This respect comes in part because courts know the government has a big job in making detailed plans about the climate. Judges often don’t set exact rules on how much to cut down on harmful air.
c. Developmental Priorities- India’s fast push for growth, such as more coal mines and big building plans, may clash with its aims to care for the climate. We see this in events like the Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)[14]. Here, a dam got the go-ahead even with worries about the Earth (Narmada Case). As growth gets put first, it can weaken the power of climate court cases. Courts might not want to stop jobs key to making money, even if they harm the air or land.
3. Limitation in Adaptation Measure- Court rulings in climate cases tend to focus more on cutting emissions (like pushing for more use of green energy) than on preparedness, even though India faces big risks from climate issues like wild weather, rising sea levels, and farm problems. The problem of not having clear rules for readiness is made worse by not having legal structures to put such actions into practice. Today’s policies, such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change from 2008[15], act only after problems occur and they don’t set strict goals for getting ready for changes (National Action Plan). This leaves people at risk, like farmers and those living near the sea, without enough ways through the courts to deal with problems caused by the changing climate.
Conclusion
As India grows fast but faces big weather issues, court cases about climate change are now key for pushing fairness in the environment. The courts are taking strong steps, as seen in the 2024 M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India case, which said that the law should protect people from the bad effects of climate change. This shows they are serious about fixing climate problems. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been key in making sure that governments and big companies face up to their roles, helping to shape a way to manage climate issues that focuses on people’s rights.
However, big issues remain, such as no laws made just for climate, Courts are too full, and putting money gains over the care of our earth. Recent events, like fights over coal mining and young people taking a stand, show how diverse and urgent the court cases about climate change are. By creating a complete law for climate, improving the courts, and ensuring just results for ignored groups, India can lead in climate justice. This way, it keeps its people safe from the rising threats of climate change.
Institutions such as the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Central Pollution Control Board, and the State Pollution Control Boards manage these laws. They create a legal framework to address climate problems even without specific laws focused on climate.
References
[1] Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 January, 1991 (1) SCC 598 (SC)
[2] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 48A
[3] The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 51A(g)
[4] The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 (Act 29 of 1986)
[5] The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 (Act 14 of 1981)
[6] The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (Act 6 of 1974)
[7] The National Green Tribunal Act 2010 (Act 19 of 2010)
[8] Ridhima Pandey v Union of India (2020) Civil Appeal Diary No 14040/2019 (SC)
[9] Gaurav Kumar Bansal v Union of India (2022) Writ Petition (Civil) No 539 of 2021 (SC)
[10] M C Mehta v Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 (SC)
[11] Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India (1990) AIR 273 (SC); (1989) 2 SCC 540 (SC)
[12] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 (SC)
[13] M K RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570
[14] Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India (2000) 10 SCC 664 (SC)
[15] “English Releases”< https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/erelcontent.aspx?relid=44098 >accessed June 21, 2025
