Justice in a Warming World: The Role of Indian Courts in Advancing Climate Justice

Abstract

Climate change is a long-term global problem driven primarily by human activity, rising temperatures, and increasingly extreme weather. Its impacts fall unevenly on human life, on nature, and especially on vulnerable communities. Climate justice addresses this imbalance: it seeks fairness in responding to these impacts, protects human rights, and distributes the environmental burden more equitably across institutions and generations.

Indian courts have played a central role in this development. By reading the right to a clean and healthy environment into Article 21 of the Constitution, and by applying principles such as the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, and sustainable development, the judiciary has strengthened environmental protection in India. Landmark rulings, most notably M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India,[1] illustrate this judicial activism and confirm that Indian courts now treat climate change as both a constitutional and a human rights concern.

International developments reinforce this trend. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/76/300 (2022) recognizes the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a matter of international consensus.[2] This article examines how Indian courts have advanced climate justice while balancing developmental and environmental imperatives.

I. Introduction

Climate change is a long-term shift in temperature and weather patterns, driven in the contemporary era primarily by human activity and greenhouse gas emissions. It has become a global problem because it affects livelihoods, human development, ecosystems, and, ultimately, the well-being of both present and future generations.

Climate justice responds to this problem by insisting that decisions about climate-related harm be made fairly, in a manner that respects everyone’s rights and needs. The impact of climate change is not distributed equally across society: vulnerable groups, including the poor, women, tribal communities, persons with disabilities, and future generations, bear a disproportionate share of the consequences, despite having contributed least to the crisis. This mismatch between contribution and consequence raises fundamental questions of fairness and accountability.

Courts, as an institution, play an important role in enforcing that accountability, holding governments and industry responsible for their climate-related conduct. Climate litigation is therefore no longer confined to environmental law, it is increasingly understood as a matter of constitutional and human rights law, particularly where it affects the livelihoods of communities in villages and forests whose lives are directly tied to the land.

II. International Recognition: UNGA Resolution A/76/300

In 2022, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/76/300, declaring that access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a universal human right.[3] Under this resolution, clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment are treated as basic human entitlements, closely linking environmental protection to the broader project of human rights protection. This international recognition has strengthened the doctrinal basis on which domestic courts, including in India, have grounded environmental rights within existing constitutional guarantees.

III. Judicial Recognition of Climate Rights: M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India

The clearest illustration of Indian judicial engagement with climate justice is M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India,[4] decided by the Supreme Court on 21 March 2024. The petition was originally filed to protect the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard from overhead power lines installed across its habitat in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Environmentalist M.K. Ranjitsinh approached the Supreme Court seeking directions to safeguard the species.

In the course of the hearing, the Court looked beyond the immediate question of bird conservation and recognized that climate change affects people’s lives, health, and safety more broadly. It held that every person has a right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change, and located that right within Article 21 (the right to life and personal dignity) and Article 14 (the right to equality before the law).

In substance, the judgment treats protection from climate-related harm as part of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life. Its significance lies in the fact that the Court did not treat the case merely as an environmental dispute; it expressly recognized climate change as a constitutional and human rights issue, confirming that Indian courts are prepared to play an active role in advancing climate justice.

IV. Environmental Jurisprudence and Constitutional Foundations

Over the past three decades, the Supreme Court of India has substantially developed environmental jurisprudence, most significantly by expanding the meaning of Article 21 to include the right to clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment. These judicially developed principles now form the foundation of climate justice discourse in India and have influenced comparable developments in other jurisdictions. Three principles in particular anchor this jurisprudence.

1. Polluter Pays Principle
Under the polluter pays principle, anyone who causes environmental pollution must bear the cost of preventing, controlling, and remediating that pollution. The principle ensures that the financial burden of environmental harm falls on the polluter rather than on the public or the State, thereby reducing polluting activity and promoting accountability.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India,[5] the Supreme Court dealt with industries whose operations had caused serious pollution in and around Bichhri village, Rajasthan. The Court held that the responsible industries must bear the cost of the harm they caused and could not escape liability by ceasing operations or delaying compliance. In doing so, the Court firmly established the polluter pays principle in Indian law: those who pollute the environment must compensate those who suffer from it.

2. Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle requires industries and governments to take preventive action against environmental harm even where complete scientific certainty about that harm is lacking. Rather than waiting for conclusive proof, decision-makers are expected to act on the reasonable possibility of risk. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration reflects this approach, providing that a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation.

In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India,[6] the Supreme Court adopted the precautionary principle as part of Indian environmental law, holding that industries bear the burden of proving their activities will not harm the environment before being permitted to proceed, rather than being allowed to act first and defend the consequences later.

3. Sustainable Development
Sustainable development means promoting economic growth and improving quality of life without over-exploiting natural resources or degrading the environment. The 1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, defined the concept as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, an idea that also underpins the principle of inter-generational equity in resource use.

The same judgment in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum confirmed sustainable development as a core principle of Indian environmental law, holding that economic growth is legitimate only where it proceeds in a manner that protects the environment and preserves resources for future generations.

V. Contemporary Developments and Climate Action

Courts alone cannot deliver climate justice; the judiciary can enforce environmental law and articulate rights, but responsibility for reducing pollution rests with society as a whole. Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), launched by the Government of India on 5 June 2022, illustrates this complementary, non-judicial dimension of climate action. The initiative encourages individuals to move from a “use and dispose” model of consumption toward a “reduce, reuse, and recycle” approach.

The programme’s central aim is to cultivate “Pro-Planet People” (P3) who make sustainable everyday choices, such as conserving water and electricity and reducing plastic use. In doing so, Mission LiFE:

• Encourages environmentally responsible use of resources.
• Helps reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Increases public participation in climate action.

VI. Environmental Challenges and Continuing Judicial Engagement

Significant environmental challenges persist despite this doctrinal and policy progress. According to Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) data, ground-level ozone has become a serious air pollution concern in India, particularly during the summer months.[7] Judicial recognition of climate-related rights has improved enforcement and strengthened accountability, but it has not eliminated the underlying problems.

CPCB assessments indicate that roughly 279 of 603 monitored river stretches in India remain polluted, underscoring that water pollution continues to be a major concern.[8] The continuing volume of pending matters before the National Green Tribunal further demonstrates that courts remain central to resolving environmental disputes. Effective environmental protection ultimately depends on sustained cooperation between courts, policymakers, industry, and citizens.

VII. Conclusion

Indian courts have advanced climate justice by interpreting constitutional rights progressively and applying them to emerging environmental harms. Judicial recognition of climate-related rights, most clearly articulated in M.K. Ranjitsinh, has strengthened environmental protection and reinforced accountability for those responsible for environmental harm.

Climate justice ultimately requires balancing development, environmental sustainability, and social equity. Achieving that balance depends on the coordinated efforts of courts, government, industry, and citizens alike. Protecting the environment is, at its core, a means of protecting human dignity, equality, and the well-being of future generations.

References

[1] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280 (SC, 21 March 2024).
[2] G.A. Res. 76/300, U.N. Doc. A/RES/76/300 (28 July 2022).
[3] G.A. Res. 76/300, U.N. Doc. A/RES/76/300 (28 July 2022).
[4] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280 (SC, 21 March 2024).
[5] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
[6] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[7] Central Pollution Control Board, [insert specific report title and year here to complete citation].
[8] Central Pollution Control Board, [insert specific report title and year here to complete citation].