Published on: 18th January 2026
Authored by: Rudrali Deshpande
New Law College, BVDU
INTRODUCTION
Climate change is one of the most significant issues of our time. It threatens health, life, the sources of food and water for life, and the environment. There is a growing trend of bringing lawsuits to seek protection from climate harm. A number of countries are already seeing an increase in climate lawsuits, and India is no exception to the trend. Indian courts have a lengthy history of providing relief for environmental issues, and courts are slowly warming to the idea of using the courts to address climate change.
Climate change litigation arises in India from citizens, youth, activists, NGOs, and civil society alike. The majority of cases frame arguments around climate change-related harm resulting in the violation of fundamental rights. Some cases focus on minimizing worsening of climate change risks using environmental laws. Concurrently, courts are also increasingly invoking developments across the world and drawing on international climate cases. This article outlines and highlights the most significant trends in India as climate cases arise, the major climate cases and their interpretations, the theories used in litigation and courts’ decisions of cases, the continent of India compares to the United States, the Netherlands, and Australia.
CLIMATE LITIGATION IN INDIA: NEW DIRECTIONS
In India, one of the most influential climate-related decisions was observed in the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh. In this case, although it involved endangered birds, the Supreme Court recognised climate rights under Articles 14 and 21[1]. The Court stated that environmental protection and climate concerns are inseparable from constitutional guarantees.
The petition in the case of Ridhima Pandey also instigated a discussion of climate change. Ridhima Pandey, as a petitioner, sought a national climate action plan, better environmental assessments, and adherence to international climate change obligations[2]. The tribunal dismissed the petition; however, the broader questions deriving from Ridhima Pandey still resonate in climate change discussions in India.
 A number of earlier environmental cases laid the groundwork for climate change case law. The MC Mehta cases, with the exception of the Oleum Gas Leak Case, have enlivened the public trust doctrine and broadened the right to a clean environment.[3] These principles have become the foundation of climate claims because they operationalise environmental protections with regard to fundamental rights.
 Forest-related and biodiversity cases have elaborated the climate value of the ecosystem. Courts have elaborated on mangroves as natural barriers to the rising seas, and made declarations that deforestation contributes directly to climate risk.[4] While these remain environmental jurisprudence conversations, they build “climate reasoning” in India.
INDIA’S LEGAL AND POLICY LANDSCAPE
India’s laws and policies concerning climate change are wide but indirect, as there is no climate law in India per se. Climate governance arises instead through reading the constitution, established environmental laws, national policies, and emerging judicial reasoning. It is these elements that make up a growing foundation for climate actions in the absence of a climate statute.
 The constitutional framework is the strongest legal basis for climate claims. Although climate change is not referenced in the Constitution, courts have interpreted several provisions of the Constitution in terms of climate. The right to life in Article 21 has been read to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.[5] In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court of India expanded on this interpretation to read a right to be free from climate harm. This reading links climate stability unequivocally to constitutional entitlements. Article 14, in guaranteeing equality, may also be relevant given climate impacts are uneven across vulnerable populations. Articles 48A and 51A(g) guide courts in relation to interpreting environmental duties in spite of their lack of enforceable rights status.[6]
In addition to the Constitution, India’s environmental law framework provides a practical foundation for climate governance. Although not designed to address climate change, India’s environmental laws affect climate outcomes daily. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, provides the foundation of India’s environmental law framework.[7] This law gives the governing executive and administrators sweeping authority to regulate activities that could be harmful through associated rules, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. When courts are tasked to review the outcomes of EIA decisions, they often examine issues, such as deforestation, pollution, or coastal degradation, that ultimately impact climate resilience. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980, protects forest land, which works in tandem with the structure of the EIA to retain India’s carbon sinks.[8] The Wildlife Protection Act, Air Act, Water Act, and Biological Diversity Act are structured to create east-west corridors while managing pollution, two elements intimately tethered to climate stability.[9]
The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, breathed life into India’s environmental management system by giving it something that most countries do not have: a dedicated court to focus only on environmental legal matters.[10] The NGT, although it does not have a specific “climate mandate,” has many disputes and legal remedial actions that are extremely relevant and centre on issues with climate implications. The expert-based model employed by the tribunal also lends management of scientific matters that emerge as disputes proceed through a climate lens.
India’s climate policy system means there are further layers of governance. In 2008, the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) articulated missions relating to solar energy, forests, and water, among other issues closely associated with climate action.[11] Though the missions within the NAPCC are not legally enforceable, they influence the government’s planning process and present a central direction for the states and ministries. India’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, expressed through its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), influence the country’s transition to cleaner energy and climate adaptation activities.[12] Even though the NDCs are not enforceable law, courts refer to them when assessing whether the government’s actions comply with climate change policy.
All of these layers, constitutional rights, environmental legislation, specialised tribunals, and national constructs, create a climate governance framework that, while imperfect, is developing. It encapsulates India’s unique legal character: adaptive, rights-based, and steeped in judicial interpretation. As climate change impacts increase, this framework will evolve, driven by the courts, government, and the citizens who depend on their environments being safe and stable for their current and future lives.
STRATEGIES USED IN INDIAN CLIMATE LITIGATION
In India, climate litigation has increased in multiple ways through the use of innovative legal strategies rather than a legal framework. Because a climate law does not exist, petitioners rely on constitutional rights, environmental statutes, public interest litigation, and India’s international obligations to present their claims. All of these strategies work together to address climate issues practically and meaningfully in the legal framework.
A strategy of constitutional torts accusing climate change of violating fundamental rights has been especially powerful. Article 21 gets a lot of use on the basis that harm from the climate crisis impacts the right to life (right to health, dignity).[13] There was an important culmination to this work when the Supreme Court of India adopted a right against climate harm in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) as an enforcement mechanism. Combining climate impacts with constitutional rights allows litigants to move the questions out of the space of policy and into one of enforceable obligations. Article 14, protecting equality, also gets a good amount of use besides Article 21 since climate change disproportionately impacts vulnerable communities.[14]
International climate obligations also play an important role in a litigation strategy. Petitioners cite the Paris Agreement and India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to put on the public record that India has committed to take certain climate actions internationally[15]. While these commitments are not automatically binding in domestic law, the courts acknowledge them as moral and interpretative guides that serve to reinforce the public’s case that climate action is both a national and an international obligation.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is another important avenue that is made possible by India’s liberal standing, allowing citizens, NGOs and even children to sue in the name of the public. This is especially important for climate-related issues because whenever the outcome of a case affects large groups of people rather than individuals, the PIL process is particularly suited to address climate impacts. The Ridhima Pandey case is an example of how young petitioners are utilising the PIL process to frame climate issues at the highest courts.
Finally, expert assistance also informs many climate-related court decisions. Courts choose to rely on scientific bodies or expert committees to help with understanding technical matters related to emissions, forests and climate impacts – something that restricts uncertainties and helps with confidence in complex environmental decisions.
Ultimately, these strategies demonstrate how climate litigation in India has been developed and shaped through rights, environmental law, international obligations and expert knowledge.
COMPARING INDIA WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
India’s climate litigation makes more sense when looking at other countries that are also experimenting with climate rights and climate-based court orders. The experiences of the United States, the Netherlands and Australia illustrate three very different approaches. Comparison to those countries shows where India is and what direction it is headed.
The United States has a long history of climate litigation, but outcomes are mixed. Federal courts often place barriers to climate lawsuits on the basis of “standing” (the necessity that you demonstrate personal harm) and separation of powers concerns.[16] The famous youth-led Juliana v. United States case illustrated this separation clearly. The youth petitioners argued that the federal government had violated their constitutional rights by providing support for increased fossil fuel use.[17] The court accepted that climate change was real and dangerous, but held that the government’s executive action to protect young people’s rights was a task for the elected branches of government. Interestingly, at the state level, this picture changes a bit. In Held v. Montana, a state court recognised that young people had a constitutional right to a stable climate system because of an express protection in Montana’s Constitution that protects the environment.[18] This marks an important difference in climate litigation outcomes in U.S. law in that those outcomes depend heavily on judicial interpretations of state constitutions and not federal law.
The judicial model in climate litigation in the Netherlands is possibly most robust. The Urgenda case marked a historic first when the Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to decrease its greenhouse gas emissions by a specific percentage.[19] The case was unique because the court justified its ordering action based on human rights protection under the European Convention on Human Rights. The development was significant because the Dutch court considered climate inaction as violating fundamental rights. The Netherlands took it a step further in Milieudefensie v. Shell, with a Dutch court establishing that a private corporation has a duty of care to reduce its own emissions, including emissions from the supply chain.[20] Dutch courts are now at ease in issuing climate orders that are specific and quantifiable. They consider climate science, human rights and state responsibility to be fully interconnected concepts.
Australia is taking a more restrained approach – the courts there are careful to stay out of what they consider to be policy issues. Climate litigants often base their argument on negligence or duty of care. This issue was publicly elevated in Sharma v. Minister for the Environment, where a lower court ruled that the government owed a duty of care to children, specifically, a duty to protect them from climate change[21]. A higher court immediately overturned this ruling, indicating that climate policy was for Parliament, not judges. Indigenous climate claims, like those made by Torres Strait Islanders, advance their cultural and existential losses from climate change issues, but Australian courts still take a restrained role. It shows that even persuasive stories do not always equal judicial intervention[22].
In this international context, India occupies a middle ground. India is arguably more open than the U.S. at the federal level and more flexible than Australia, but it does not advance as far as the Netherlands in delivering compelling emissions obligations. Indian courts have drawn upon – and melded – constitutional rights and environmental principles to permit claims of climate change even when there is no statute addressing climate change. Despite many advantages, including recognition by India’s Supreme Court of constitutional rights against climate harm (which puts India at the leading edge of the world), Indian courts have still been reticent to compel quantitative reductions in emissions. This makes sense when we view it through the lens of priorities related to development and the fact that India’s judiciary prefers to provide structure rather than an intrusive mandate to address climate change.
In sum, this comparison reveals that India has not moved into the aggressive rights-based enforcement seen in the Netherlands but pushes beyond the bounds of the more constraining U.S. federal courts or Australia. India has created an alternative path that combines constitutional interpretation, environmental jurisprudence and judicial creativity. It is largely a hybrid model, one that is rights-based, flexible and evolving to push India forward based upon not just national realities but also global inspiration.
BROADER COMPARISON AND OVERALL ANALYSIS
A broader examination of climate litigation across jurisdictions indicates that courts diverge less in their understanding of climate risk compared to their hesitance to develop climate governance. What separates states is not the science but the judicial mentality: to what extent courts feel they can go when the legislature has demonstrated insufficient urgency.
This perspective clarifies India’s stance on climate issues. Its courts consider climate issues through a lens of constitutional interpretation and public interest litigation, meaning climate harms can be reconceptualised to fit within a rights violation even when the country lacks a climate statute. This generates a flexible system with regard to climate impacts, as cases can be brought and decided upon as climate risk evolves. Nevertheless, Indian courts still do not impose rigid categories of emission targets or deep policy recommendations. I.e., Indian court interventions remain structural and principle-based endeavours rather than prescriptive policy mandates.
Elsewhere, models diverge. Some courts adopt a strong positive obligation to protect their citizens from climate harm when, in contrast, other courts self-restrict judicial review only to evaluate procedural fairness or reasonableness of the governments. Together, the Netherlands operates on one end of the spectrum, treating inaction as a human-rights violation and calling for measurable emission reductions, while the United States (at the federal level) and Australia simply limit the judiciary’s intervention largely because of institutional caution or currently narrow constitutional design considerations.
India’s approach sits between these two extremes. It acknowledges climate rights, grants broad standing, and draws on traditional environmental principles to expand state responsibilities, but does not exhibit the same level of judicial activism present in some European jurisdictions. This middle ground is representative of India’s legal culture, development aspirations, and the judiciary’s awareness of institutional constraints.
From a more microanalytic perspective, India’s climate jurisprudence is best described as rights-based but restraint-considered. It is responsive to international trends but not bound by them. Its strength lies in its flexibility: courts can borrow from a framework of international reasoning, expand constitutional protections, and resolve functional gaps in policy and governance without entering the distinct arena of governance in any overt way.
The hybrid model positions India as an emerging jurisdiction in climate law, an example of a jurisdiction that may exhibit greater assertiveness as climate effects manifest; however, it will do so based on its interpretation of the constitution rather than through the lens of judicial command.
CONCLUSION
Climate change litigation in India is still in its formative stage, but there is little doubt about its direction. What started as a type of environmental litigation has gradually transitioned into a rights-based context whereby climate harms are treated as threats to life, dignity, health, and equality. The judiciary has played an important role in facilitating this transition, notably with the constitutional recognition of a right to be free from climate harm. This shift toward recognising a constitutional right to be free from climate harm is being driven by public interest litigation in circumstances where environmental principles have endured for many years, allowing climate claims to flourish even without a climate statute.
A comparison with global models evidences that India occupies an interesting middle position. It is neither as interventionist as the Netherlands, nor as constrained as the United States or Australia. Rather, India is utilising a hybrid approach, rooted in constitutional interpretation, environmental jurisprudence and a sensitivity of the judiciary to national development priorities. This has allowed courts to protect rights, direct policy, and fill gaps in governance, without overstepping legislative bounds.
As the impacts of climate change intensify, India’s adaptable legal regime will only become more important. The courts have demonstrated that they are willing to adapt, be flexible, evolve and, ultimately, respond. Going forward, courts will create a tighter nexus between climate science, human rights, and the constitutional obligations of the state, and hold the state to account by requiring more robust institutional responses.
India’s climate jurisprudence remains emergent, but it is gradually heading in the direction of a rights-based, justice-responsive model. If courts can continue to marry creativity, while also restraining it, India can create a climate-legal framework that is principled and practical and can protect people and ecosystems in an evolving climate.
[1] M K Ranjitsinh v Union of India [2024] INSC 280 (SC).
[2] Ridhima Pandey v Union of India (2017) NGT (Principal Bench) OA No 187 of 2017; Ridhima Pandey v Union of India WP (C) No 109 of 2020 (SC).
[3] MC Mehta v Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) 1 SCC 395.
[4] Bombay Environmental Action Group v State of Maharashtra (2012) 5 Bom CR 1 (Bom HC).
[5] Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) 1 SCC 598.
[6] Constitution of India, arts 48A and 51A(g).
[7] Environment (Protection) Act 1986.
[8] Forest Conservation Act 1980.
[9] Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974; Wildlife Protection Act 1972; Biological Diversity Act 2002.
[10] National Green Tribunal Act 2010.
[11] Government of India, National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008).
[12] India, ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contribution: Working Towards Climate Justice’ (UNFCCC, 2015).
[13] Constitution of India, art 21.
[14] Constitution of India, art 14.
[15] India, ‘Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)’ under the Paris Agreement (2015).
[16] Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency 549 US 497 (2007).
[17] Juliana v United States 217 F Supp 3d 1224 (D Or 2016).
[18] Held v State of Montana No CDV-2020-307 (Mont Dist Ct 2023).
[19] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (2019) ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (Supreme Court of the Netherlands).
[20] Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell plc ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 (Hague District Court 2021).
[21] Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 (Federal Court of Australia).
[22] Torres Strait Islanders v Australia, UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No 3624/2019, Views adopted 22 September 2022.
