Published On: August 31st 2025
Authored By: Tanya
New Law College, BVDU, Pune
INTRODUCTION
One of India’s most pressing issues today is climate change. With a huge population and diverse ecosystems, India is a rapidly developing nation that is particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Serious threats to the country’s ecology, economy, and society are melting glaciers, erratic monsoons, regular floods, severe droughts, and rising sea levels. India is disproportionately vulnerable to climate change, despite the fact that its past contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions was not high. India needs to take urgent action, adopt strong policy interventions, and shift to sustainable development in an effort to address climate change and maintain livelihoods, food and water security, and well-being of future generations.
INDIA’S UNIQUE POSITION
India occupies a unique and contradictory space in the global discussion on climate change. As the world’s third-largest energy consumer, India is expected to deal with the increasing demand for energy at the same time it addresses the threats posed by climate change. India has some of the largest emissions in total and is still far below the world average emissions per capita making it difficult to balance stewardship of the environment with the developmental goals for the world’s second-most populous country. India is already well along the way to fulfilling its commitment to reductions in the emissions intensity of its GDP by 45% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, with a 36% reduction by 2020 already achieved. By late 2024, India had achieved over 46.52% of its installed electricity capacity from non-fossil sources, expected to produce 50% of its installed electricity capacity by 2030.
Despite these advancements, India is turning away from mitigation and moving to and adaptation in its climate plan. This shift, especially post-us withdrawal from Paris Agreement on 2025 and fuzziness on COP29, shows dissatisfaction with global inertia and insufficient climate financing. India contends, instead of mitigation which is dependent on international and local agreements and cooperation, adaptation (e.g., building climate-resilient infrastructures, promoting sustainable agriculture, etc.) has a more direct and immediate benefit in locality. India’s allocation to adaptation have increased – the country invested roughly 5.6% of its GDP to adaptation in 2021-2022, with an estimation that it would need $680 million through 2030 to keep pace.
India’s Climate Diplomacy, guided by principles of justice and equity, highlights new policies that punish developing nations (e.g. the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism), and advances “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.” India is investing in sustainability technologies domestically such as small modular nuclear reactors, wind turbines, and solar panels in an attempt to diminish dependency on international supply chains. It is also catalysing behaviour change by promoting sustainable lifestyles through programs like Mission Life.
However, the problems remain. Mainly, India’s energy mix is still highly coal-dependent and decarbonizing major sectors like transportation and agriculture remains complex. Resources remain under pressure due to urbanization and growing population, and any constraints due to intellectual property rights and costs also hinder access to advanced technologies. India is trying to engage in trade-offs between environmental sustainability, energy security, and economic growth in a quickly warming world.
CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION IN INDIA
Climate change litigation is a more powerful and more strategic means of engaging with environmental governance, public accountability, and judicial activism in India. It is founded on India’s constitutional and legal landscape, and is indicative of a growing awareness of the role of the judiciary in facing the effects of climate change and holding environmental justice claims.
Article 21 of the Constitution provides the right to life which the Supreme Court has interpreted broadly as including the right to a clean and healthy environment and is the keystone of India’s legal regime on climate litigation. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to give courts jurisdiction to intervene in environmental matters without the need for special statutory provisions. The legal regime into which the CPCB and SPCBs operate for example, provides regulatory oversight and enforcement aided by additional supporting legislation such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air Act (1981), and the Water Act (1974).
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which allows individuals and non-governmental organizations to approach courts on behalf of affected populations, is one of the most significant developments in India’s climate litigation universe. Aside from its historic rulings, this expanded doctrine of standing has broadened access to public interest litigation on behalf of environmental justice. For example, the Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ordered the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) in public transport to reduce air pollution. The Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India also limited industrial activities in environmentally sensitive areas to halt the loss of biodiversity.
An important institutional development was the officially establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010. The NGT has evolved into a major forum for climate-related disputes including waste management, climate action plans, industrial emissions to deforestation with over 15,000 cases brought in the last five years. Critics assert it has no flexibility to address new climatic issues with jurisdiction limited to designated environmental rules.
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, which was litigated by a 9-year-old climate activist, illustrates how poor government policies fail to achieve international commitments to addressing climate change, while strategic litigation is growing. These cases will create public discussion and generate policy change, in addition to finding just resolution. Similarly, the judiciary has supported local decisions − including based on international norms like the Paris Agreement and the Public Trust Doctrine.
Notwithstanding these developments, challenges still exist. Scientific uncertainty, procedural lag, and lack of expertise impede effective adjudication. For example, it is still difficult to demonstrate a nexus between emissions and climate-related harm particularly in claims based on nuisance, but moreover, environmental conservation and economic development often run counter to each other in climate change law, often forcing judges to balance difficult trade-offs.
As there is growing public awareness of climate change, youth-led movements, and amendments to strengthen the NGT’s mandate, climate litigation in India is likely to increase. The courts’ provide safeguards for environmental rights, which is vital for ensuring a resilient and just future, as climate related risks increase.
ROLE OF JUDICIARY
In cases related to climate change, the role of the Indian court is broad and significant; it acts as a monitor of regulatory failures, it promotes policy changes best suited to environmental protection, and it protects environmental rights. The court’s role flows from constitutional values, and in particular from Article 21 which protects the right to life but has also been read by courts to include the right to a safe and hygienic environment. This interpretation has given courts jurisdiction to decide climate change cases even in the absence of specific climate legislation.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is one of the most powerful tools available to the judiciary. It allows people and civil society to petition courts on behalf of affected communities. The courts have addressed the issues of industrial emissions, deforestation, and air and water pollution through PILs; many of these issues relate, either directly or indirectly, to climate change. Landmark cases, such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, illustrate the judiciary is taking positive steps to enforce environmental standards and to pressure the government to act.
Climate litigation was further institutionalized in 2010 with the establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which created a designated court to handle environmental issues. The NGT has adjudicated many thousands of cases, including climate mitigation, climate adaptation, and environmental impact assessment compliance. Detractors argue that it is unable to flexibly respond to new climatic situations and that it has a limited mandate covering specific environmental statutes.
The Indian courts have also implemented international environmental principles, such as the precautionary principle, polluter pays, and public trust doctrine, and courts have cited international frameworks like the Paris Agreement to enhance their domestic decision-making capacity. InRidhima Pandey v. Union of India, analysis of national climate policy in which judges were asked to assess the validity of the national climate policy is evidence that there is a movement toward strategic litigation for systemic change.
Despite these advances, the tension between environmental preservation and development pressures has not receded, and obstacles remain from the issue of scientific and procedural uncertainty. Some decisions have also been criticized for compromising the rights of marginalized forest-dwelling peoples in the interest of economic development or conservation.
In short, the role of the Indian judiciary is an important aspect of climate governance, offering the potential to set legal norms, hold parties accountable, and contribute to climate justice—as long as it takes an inclusive and sensitive approach to environmental decision-making.
CHALLENGES FACED
Climate change litigation in India faces several obstacles that limit its effectiveness and broader impact. One of the major hurdles is climate change’s non-specificity and non-specificity, as it is often difficult to establish direct causation between keeping a particular emission in context of climate harms. The impression that climate-specific legislation does not exist limits the basis for judicial interventions and the courts repeatedly rely on general environmental laws. In practice, there are several factors that can further compromise the evidence base of climate claims, including procedural delays, an absence of strong climate modelling tools, and inadequate scientific expertise.
Although it plays a vital role in resolving environmental disputes, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has limited jurisdiction and enforcement powers which make it difficult to respond comprehensively to new challenges posed by climate change. Litigation is further complicated by sociopolitical forces, since climate action sometimes opposes developmental goals such as industrialization and poverty reduction. Furthermore, marginalized communities that are usually the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change encounter barriers to justice, and public interest litigations (PILs) may be counterproductive since they can infringe upon their rights if they call for conservation efforts that marginalize them. Moreover, the judiciary has to balance economic development alongside environmental stewardship which can yield controversial decisions. Despite these barriers, climate litigation in India has strategic potential, especially when it is framed within a rights-based environmental jurisprudence and when it is coupled with institutional reforms, social awareness, and youth engagement.
REMEDIES
In India, the primary bases of remedies in climate change actions are statutory, constitutional, and judicial processes designed to protect environmental rights and promote accountability. The judiciary has recognized the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), to impose court-made orders on polluters and governments that are capable of being enforced in a court of law. There are statutory remedies for issues such as reversing actions, stopping actions, and monetary recoveries in the forms of fees. The Water Act (1974), Air Act (1981) and the Environment Protection Act (1986) are all statutory instruments, which exist to provide remedies that regulatory bodies can enforce, including reversals, stopping works, and fines.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established by the NGT Act (2010) as a specialized court with the purpose of quickly resolving environmental problems. In harmony with Section 22 of the Act, the NGT can hear appeals to the Supreme Court. The Right to Information Act enables citizens to question non-compliance and request for environmental statistics. Options for compensation for the damages to the environment, restoration to the damaged ecosystem, prohibition of actions that contribute to climate change, are remedies. These options remedies provide a strong avenue to redress, however, without timely enforcement, scientific evidence, and institutional collaboration are essential components.
CONCLUSION
Climate change litigation has emerged as a powerful tool for public accountability, environmental governance, and the protection of constitutional rights in India. The Judiciary has been indispensable in overcoming legislative shortcomings, taking actions, and enforcing a wide interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes a right to life and a right to an environment that is healthy. Despite problems associated with limited jurisdiction and lack of enforcement powers, the establishment of the National Green Tribunal has further institutionalized climate-related adjudication. Youth activism, nuanced legal framing, and increasing public consciousness are shaping a new reality for climate litigation despite challenges such as scientific uncertainty, procedural delays, and trade-offs with socio-economics. Courts are a key pillar of climate justice in a country where the priorities of sustainability and development are at odds with one another. Improving institutional capacity, adopting international values, and fostering inclusive legal solutions will be an essential task in ensuring that climate litigation delivers remedies but are also helps shape a resilient, equitable future.
