Climate change has become one of the most significant global challenges of the 21st century. It refers to a long-term increase in temperature and changes in weather patterns, primarily due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of these changes is not only limited to the countries that have contributed most to greenhouse gas emissions and have benefited immensely from industrialisation, but also extends equally to small coastal nations that have made almost no contribution to it at all.

This article explores the evolving role of the Indian judiciary in addressing the climate crisis with the help of liberal and expansive interpretations of constitutional and statutory provisions, and utilizing the constantly evolving mechanism of environmental jurisprudence. Crucially, it analyses the landmark Supreme Court ruling in MK Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) 19 SCC 139, which formally recognised the "right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change" as a fundamental right.

India, with a population of 1.4 billion, a vast coastline, a glacier-dependent river system, and a massive population reliant on rainwater, is highly vulnerable to sudden and frequent changes in climate and weather patterns.

The constant and gradual rise in sea level due to increased rainfall and retreating glaciers can lead to irreversible demographic and topographic changes.  As marginalized communities are most vulnerable, they are at the forefront of these distressing changes. These changes can further widen the gap between people and undo years of progress made through welfare policies.   

Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution — the Directive Principles of State Policy and the Fundamental Duties — impose a non-binding but constitutional obligation and duty upon the state to protect and improve the environment, and on every citizen to protect the natural environment.

Additionally, Wild life Protection Act, 1972, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environmental Protection Act, 1986, Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, have been brought to fulfil the global obligations, and address climate change related concerns. These legislative enactments envisage a balanced and healthy ecosystem, and serve as a critical tool for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Unlike jurisdictions such as Ecuador, Colombia, and Zambia, India does not have an express and justiciable constitutional provision on climate change. However, this has not stopped Indian Courts to developed mechanism to protect the environment. Various High Courts and the Supreme Court have sought to bridge this gap through liberal and expansive constitutional interpretation.

The evolution of public interest litigation (PIL) system

The Supreme Court and High Courts have spearheaded environmental protection in India through Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Notably, it emerged in the 1970s and flourished in the 1980s — a period marked by rapid industrialisation, and growing concern for environmental degradation due to unsustainable development. It is considered the primary vehicle for judicial intervention in environmental matters.

Environmental doctrines: From polluter pays to public trust

The issue related to “environment and ecological balance” was first raised in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP (1985) 2 SCC 431, which involved limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie Hill Range that caused landslides and led to the drying up of perennial water springs. The apex court directed the afforestation and soil conservation programmes in respect of the closed limestone quarries.

In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212, the court defined the polluter pays principle as, “once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous”, the person carrying on such activity is liable to “make good the loss” caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took “reasonable care while carrying on his activity."

The principle was also applied in the subsequent cases of Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, and MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.

In the Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (supra), a PIL was filed against the massive discharge of “untreated effluents” by over 900 tanneries and other industries in five districts of Tamil Nadu. Apart from applying PPP, the court also applied the concept of sustainable development, and the precautionary principle. The court rejected the traditional notion that development, and ecology are inherently opposed. Instead, the court affirmed that sustainable development is “part of customary international law”. As these principles are not inconsistent with municipal laws, they are deemed to be “incorporated” into the Indian Legal System.

In MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (supra), the apex court, in addition to using the PPP, formally introduced the doctrine of public trust in Indian environmental law, thereby incorporating it into Indian environmental jurisprudence. According to the doctrine, certain resources like air, water, and forest have “such a great importance to the people” that it would be “wholly unjustified” to make them subject to private ownership.

The court ultimately held that the state is the “trustee of all the natural resources”, and the public is the “beneficiary”. The court reached the conclusion that the government of Himachal Pradesh has committed a “patent breach of public trust” by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management. The motel was made liable not just for compensating those affected by the project but also for restoring the degraded environment.

Present framework: Right against adverse effects of climate change

In MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India (2024) 19 SCC 139, the Supreme Court recognized “the right to be free from adverse effects of climate change” as a fundamental right under Article 14 and 21.

The primary concern here was regarding the protection, and conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), and the lesser florican. As GIBs have poor vision, collisions with overhead power transmission lines, along with other reasons, were considered a major cause of their mortality. As a result, the Supreme Court, in a previous order dated April 19, 2021, imposed a blanket ban on overhead powerlines in a massive 99,000 sq. km area and directed the installation of underground powerlines in all feasible areas in future cases. However, Union of India sought a modification of the direction.

The apex court, for the first time, recognized “right to be free from adverse effects of climate change” as a distinct right, stemming from Article 21 and 14.  However, while giving effect to this newly recognised right, courts have to take other rights — including constitutional rights — into consideration before deciding any case.

It was also held that “sweeping directions”, without relying on those equipped and trained to assess various facets of the problem, warrant recalibration. The court concluded by substituting the 2021 directions for those issued in this case.

These interventions often lead to enactments, rules, regulations, and bye-laws that strengthen the overall environmental legal order and enforcement machinery.

Indian courts, through their adaptive approach along with liberal and expansive interpretations, have shown remarkable agility in responding to the climate change crisis. However, this judicial intervention must be accompanied by comprehensive legislative and executive actions.

Unless all stakeholders — legislature, judiciary, executive, and private sector — acknowledge the seriousness of climate change and work together, India cannot effectively tackle the climate-related challenges or fulfil the right to a stable environment.

Importantly, India needs a comprehensive climate change redressal mechanism modelled not only on best international practices but also one that aligns with domestic requirements.

About the author: Naveen Kumar is an Advocate-On-Record, Supreme Court of India.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.