Sajid A. Patel

Assistant Professor in Mercantile Law,

D.A.V. Velankar College of Commerce, Solapur

sajid123490@gmail.com

Abstract

In 2023, climate litigation in India underwent significant doctrinal and institutional development, with courts increasingly articulating environmental protection as a constitutional mandate. Although the formal recognition of climate rights under Article 21 occurred in 2024, the intellectual and jurisprudential foundation for this development was firmly established in 2023 through sustained judicial activism, the strategic use of public interest litigation, and rights-oriented interpretations of environmental law. This paper analyses how Indian courts in 2023 broadened constitutional jurisprudence to respond to the challenges of climate change, with particular emphasis on Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 14 (Right to Equality), and the principle of intergenerational equity. It examines significant judicial decisions, doctrinal innovations, and emerging adjudicatory trends that collectively positioned the Indian judiciary as a central actor in the governance of climate change.

Keywords: Climate Litigation, Constitutional Rights, Article 21, Environmental Justice, Sustainable Development, Public Interest Litigation, Intergenerational Equity, National Green Tribunal.

Introduction

In 2023, India’s vulnerability to the growing impacts of climate change became unmistakably clear and a matter of urgent national concern. The country witnessed record-breaking and prolonged heat waves across several regions, severely affecting public health, agricultural productivity, water availability, and overall economic stability. At the same time, monsoon patterns became increasingly erratic and unpredictable, disrupting traditional rainfall cycles on which millions of farmers depend. The situation was further aggravated by destructive floods in Assam and Himachal Pradesh, which caused large-scale displacement, infrastructure damage, and significant loss of life and property. These extreme climatic events collectively exposed the limitations and inadequacies of existing governmental policies and administrative preparedness, thereby intensifying public scrutiny of the State’s climate governance framework. As a result, affected individuals and civil society groups increasingly invoked constitutional rights to demand stronger, more accountable, and scientifically informed climate action.

Against this backdrop, the Indian judiciary long recognized for its expansive and purposive interpretation of fundamental rights emerged as a central forum for addressing climate-related grievances. Courts were approached not merely to resolve isolated environmental disputes but to examine broader constitutional obligations concerning climate protection and environmental sustainability. Although statutory instruments such as the Environment Protection Act and adjudicatory bodies like the National Green Tribunal provided procedural mechanisms for environmental redress, many litigants perceived these frameworks as insufficient to address the systemic and long-term challenges posed by climate change. Consequently, there was a growing shift toward constitutional litigation, with petitioners seeking explicit judicial recognition of climate rights as an integral component of fundamental rights, thereby reinforcing the role of constitutional law in shaping India’s climate governance.

Constitutional Mandate and Judicial Activism for Climate Protection

1. Right to Life and Environmental Protection (Article 21)

Article 21 of the Constitution of India says that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Judicial interpretation has significantly expanded the meaning of “life” to include the right to live with dignity, health, and a clean and safe environment. In many cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) ((1987) 1 SCC 395), Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar ((1991) 1 SCC 598), Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India ((1996) 3 SCC 212), M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath ((1997) 1 SCC 388), Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India ((1996) 5 SCC 647), A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu ((1999) 2 SCC 718), Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India ((2019) 15 SCC 401), In Re: Noise Pollution:-Implementation of the Laws for Restricting Use of Loudspeakers ((2022) SCC On Line SC 150) the Supreme Court of India has held that right to pollution free environment is a  part of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution and so any type of pollution affecting human life is violative of fundamental Right to Life under Article 21.

Recently in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India & Others (2024) Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 the Supreme Court held that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live in a healthy environment and the protection of biodiversity. In this case a Writ Petition was filed to protect the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican, two critically endangered bird species in India. For protection of climate protection of biodiversity is necessary and the same has been emphasised by the Court.

ii) Equality and Climate Vulnerability (Article 14)

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including rural communities, economically weaker sections, indigenous and forest-dwelling groups and Women and children.

Rural populations mainly depend on agriculture and natural resources. Climate change including erratic rainfall, droughts and floods disproportionately affects their livelihoods, leading to inequality in access to resources and justice which is violative of their fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. In M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. the Supreme Court recognized the right to be free from adverse effects of climate change as part of Articles 21 and 14. This ruling emphasized that equality requires protecting vulnerable groups like rural farmers from disproportionate climate burdens. Similarly poor households face higher exposure to climate risks like heat waves, heavy rainfall, floods etc.  due to inadequate housing, lack of healthcare, and limited adaptive capacity as compared to other people belonging to higher economic strata. Indigenous communities including tribal who are dependent on forest face displacement, biodiversity loss, and erosion of cultural rights due to deforestation and climate change. Article 14 requires equal protection of their rights, ensuring they are not side lined in climate governance. Women often suffer from climate induced resource scarcity of water and food security while children are more vulnerable to health impacts due to climate changes. In many cases including Rajnathsinh’s case the Supreme Court of India has emphasised that equality under Article 14 cannot be realized without addressing climate impacts, implicitly covering women and children.

iii)Directive Principles of State Policy

Part IV of Indian Constitution comprising of Articles 36 to 51 provides for Directive Principles of State Policy which are directives to the Government to be followed while making laws and policies for ensuring welfare of Indian citizens. Although Directive Principles are non-justiciable they provide crucial constitutional guidance in environmental matters. Article 48-A directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Indian courts have repeatedly used this provision to interpret fundamental rights in an environmentally progressive manner. Article 39(b) and (c) emphasise equitable distribution of resources and prevention of concentration of wealth. Climate governance, especially regarding natural resources, aligns with these principles. In many cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) ((1987) 1 SCC 395), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) ((1988) 1 SCC 471), T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ((1997) 2 SCC 267) and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 3751) the Indian Judiciary used the provisions of Directive Principles of State Policy for protection and preservation of natural environment.

Fundamental Duty to protect environment

Article 51 A (g) of Indian Constitution imposes a duty upon every Indian citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. Even though fundamental duties are not directly enforceable, in many Indian judiciary has used them to justify restrictions on environmentally harmful activities, reinforce the legitimacy of environmental regulations and emphasise collective responsibility in climate governance. Thus in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India ((1996) 5 SCC 647) the Supreme Court invoked Article 51A (g) along with Article 48A to emphasize citizens’ duty in environmental protection and evolved Precautionary Principle, which requires preventive action in cases of environmental risk, even in the absence of complete scientific certainty and Polluter Pays principle which imposes obligation upon the person who is responsible for pollution to bear the costs of remediation. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India popularly known as Taj Trapezium Case ((1997) 2 SCC 353) the Supreme Court by using Article 51 A (g) justified restrictions on industries polluting near the Taj Mahal. In Almitra Patel v. Union of India ((2000) 2 SCC 679) the Supreme Court has stated that it is a fundamental duty of every citizen to not to not litter and to cooperate with municipal authorities. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India ((1997) 2 SCC 267) the Supreme Court held that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to protect the forests.

Role of Public Interest Litigation

            Public spirited persons and N.G.Os. filed many Public Interest Litigations for protection of environment on behalf of affected communities. The rule of Locus Standi has been relaxed by the Supreme Court to broaden the access to justice for marginalized groups impacted by environmental degradation and pollution. Indian judiciary has used the fundamental rights, directive principles of state policy, fundamental duties in the Constitution to allow the Public Interest Litigations for protection of environment and those who are affected by environmental pollution and degradation.

Thus in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1985 SC 652) the Supreme Court ordered closure of limestone quarries in Mussoorie to prevent ecological damage.  In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (AIR 1987 SC 1086) expanded Article 21 to include environmental safety. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case) ((1988) 1 SCC 471) by allowing a Public Interest Litigation Court directed closure of polluting tanneries. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India ((2000) 10 SCC 664) Supreme Court balanced development with environmental concerns. In many Public Interest Litigations filed in Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court it has been reiterated that Right to Life under Article 21 includes the right to clean air. The Courts have invoked Article 48 which is a Directive Principle and Article 51 A (g) which is Fundamental Duty to emphasise collective responsibility to protect the environment. In Bombay High Court and Madras High Court Public Interest Litigations were filed for municipal waste management. Courts directed civic bodies to comply with Solid Waste Management Rules, citing citizen’s duty under Article 51A (g). In 2023 in continuation of Writ Petition filed in 1995 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others ((1997) 2 SCC 267) the Supreme Court by monitoring compliance of forest conservation norm issued several directions for conservation of forests and illegalizing deforestation and encroachment in forests and enforced duty of state under Article 48 of Constitution. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024 SCC On Line SC 570) upon a Public Interest Litigation Supreme Court held that right to be free from adverse effects of climate change is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Contemporary Developments in Climate Litigation Jurisprudence

            Contemporary development of climate litigation jurisprudence can be explained with following points

            i)Shift from Environmental Protection to Climate Accountability

Earlier in n the 1980s and 1990s, Indian courts primarily dealt with pollution control, deforestation, and industrial hazards which is evident from cases in which writ petitions were filed by public spirited persons like M.C. Mehta and other N.G.O.s. Earlier the focus of Indian judiciary was on preventing harm to environment causing by air, water, noise pollution and enforcing statutory compliance under laws like the Water Act, Air Act, and Forest Conservation Act. In cases in mid 90s Supreme Court of India has evolved certain new principles like Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle etc. Since 2019, Indian courts have increasingly addressed climate change impacts directly, moving beyond general environmental protection. In Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) the court scrutinized environmental clearances for large projects, stressing climate‑sensitive decision‑making. Similarly in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India the Supreme Court protected endangered species like the Great Indian Bustard, linking biodiversity loss to climate change and intergenerational equity.

New era has witnessed active role of youth in protection of environment and environmental resources which is evident from a writ petition filed by Ridhima Pandey which was cited as Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2021, pending before the Supreme Court of India. In this case petitioner Ridhima Pandey emphasised on failure of Government of India to take adequate steps to combat climate change despite obligations of Government under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and international commitments like the Paris Agreement.

ii) Fundamental Rights-Based Framing of Climate Harm

The cases like Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987) in which it was held that pollution‑free air and water are essential for Right to Life under Article 21 formed basis for linking environmental harm with constitutional rights. Later in N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) Court held that forest conservation and ecological balance are integral to Article 21. Recent petitions, such as Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2021), shows that failure of State to protect climate violates fundamental rights. Apart from only environmental issue harm to climate and environment has now become a matter involving violation of fundamental rights.

iii) Doctrinal Innovations by Judiciary:-

Indian judiciary especially the Supreme Court has been inventing new doctrines in the litigations for environmental protection. Absolute Liability principle which makes an enterprise engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities fully liable for any harm caused without any exception or defence was evolved by Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, AIR 1987 SC 1086). Precautionary Principle which says that when there is a risk of serious or irreversible environmental harm, the lack of complete scientific certainty cannot be used as a reason to delay preventive measures and Polluter Pays principle which says that the party responsible for causing pollution must bear the costs of managing and remedying the damagecaused to the environment were evolved by Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India ((1996) 5 SCC 647). In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Others, ((1997) 1 SCC 388) the Supreme Court evolved the doctrine of Public Trust doctrine which says that certain natural resources like rivers, forests, and coastal are preserved for public use, and the State acts as a trustee of these resources and so even State cannot transfer or exploit such resources for private gain, as they belong to the people collectively. In recent cases involving climate litigation like M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) and Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India (2021) the principle of Climate Accountability and Climate Justice has been evolved by Supreme Court for protection of environment.

iv)Integration of International Climate Commitments

In many climate litigations Supreme Court has applied and integrated international norms and commitments for protection of environment. Thus in accordance with international convention of Rio Declaration (1992) in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India ((1996) 5 SCC 647) Supreme Court has evolved Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle. In Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India the petitioner emphasised on Paris Agreement (2015) and contended that failure to meet emission reduction targets and adaptation measures violates both international commitments and fundamental rights domestically.

Conclusion

Indian climate litigation has moved beyond traditional environmental protection to embrace constitutional climate accountability. By interpreting Article 21 to include the right to a healthy environment and extending Article 14 to address climate vulnerability, the judiciary has firmly placed climate justice within the constitutional framework. The use of Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties highlights the shared responsibility of both the State and citizens in safeguarding ecological integrity. Public Interest Litigations have been crucial in widening access to climate justice, ensuring that marginalized communities are represented in constitutional adjudication. Judicial innovations such as the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, and Public Trust Doctrine have now evolved into climate-specific doctrines, while references to international commitments like the Paris Agreement show India’s engagement with global climate governance. Together, these developments establish the judiciary not only as a forum for environmental disputes but as a constitutional guardian of intergenerational equity and climate justice. Recognizing climate rights as fundamental rights marks a turning point in India’s constitutional journey, affirming that the struggle against climate change is inseparable from the protection of human dignity, equality, and life itself.

References

1. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India (LexisNexis, 2021).
   K.C. Agrawal, Environmental Pollution and Law (Agro Botanical Publishers, 1995).
   Shibani Ghosh, Climate Change and the Law in India: Emerging Trends and Challenges
2. (Centre for Policy Research, 2023).
   Sairam Bhat, Law of Environmental Protection in India (Eastern Book Company, 2012).
3. Archana Ashok Khandwe, Climate Change Litigation in India: Rising Judicial Activism Post–M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), Ves College of Law Journal (2024).
4. Aakash Malik, Courts and Climate: How Judicial Interpretation Shapes Environmental Law in India, International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR), Vol. 11, Issue 4 (Oct. 2024).
5. Shibani Ghosh, Litigating Climate Change in India: Emerging Trends and Challenges, NUJS Law Review (2023).
6. Lavanya Rajamani, The Increasing Role of Courts in Climate Governance: Lessons from India, Journal of Environmental Law (2022).
7. Mamta Devi, Constitutional Law and Climate Change in India: Is There a Right to a Sustainable Environment?, LHP College of Law Journal (2024).
8. Relevant Case Laws