Abstract
The climate crisis extends beyond traditional environmental issues and requires a paradigm shift in constitutional responsibilities over time. This paper examines how intergenerational equity has become a constitutional necessity in India and how the principle has reshaped the balance of rights, duties, and democratic responsibilities between current and future generations. This paper employs the methodology of doctrinal research and examines the evolution of Indian environmental jurisprudence, tracing its development from fragmented statutory provisions to the establishment of institutions for climate governance as a constitutional provision. The discussion illustrates how modern judicial activism, drawing on cultural, philosophical, and comparative legal traditions, has articulated an intergenerational climate justice framework based on sustainable development, precaution, and equity.
The study also reveals important gaps between constitutional acknowledgment and actual execution,which demonstrates the need to have institutional frameworks that go beyond electoral cycles and short-term political interests. The paper demonstrates that the concept of environmental protection has evolved from a matter of preference in policy to one of necessity in democratic governance, as recognized by the constitutional Court through the analysis of cases involving intergenerational environmental harm and the irreversible consequences of legislative inaction.The work contributes to the growing field of climate constitutionalism, proposing ways in which future-oriented governance can ensure constitutional guarantees for unborn generations without compromising the democratic legitimacy of current constituencies.
Keywords – Intergenerational Equity, Constitutionalism, Climate Justice, Environmental Governance, Sustainable Development.
INTRODUCTION
Constitutional democracies are guided by one primary assumption: victims of government policies should be part of the process of decision-making. This value completely fails to hold when it comes to addressing climate change, where those most affected, such asfuture generations, have no political representation in the present decision-making processes.[1]. Brian Barry terms this a “grand-scale prisoner’s dilemma” across temporal boundaries, where present-day actors impose costs on future generations who possess no means to either participate or retaliate. This asymmetry distinguishes climate change from traditional environmental problems, creating what Stephen Gardiner identifies as a “perfect moral storm“, a convergence of global, intergenerational, and theoretical challenges that complicate ethical and legal responses.[2]
The constitutional system in India offers uniquewaysfor addressing this asymmetry througha broad interpretation of the right to life in Article 21. The jurisprudential development by the Supreme Court from Maneka Gandhi[3] The most recent environmental rulings reveal the Constitution’s capacity to evolve beyond its original framers’ intentions. However, there exist significant gaps between the constitutional acknowledgment and actual execution. The most recent indications from the Supreme Court in recognizing intergenerational equity in environmental matters lack specific institutional means to maintain climate control, which Rajamani refers to as a “climate governance deficit.”[4]
Intergenerational harm from climate change is transmitted in multiple, interconnected waysthat compoundover time. Environmental degradation manifests through greenhouse gas emissions, ecological impairment, and resource depletion, which are exacerbated over time. Health impacts include exposure to climate-sensitive diseases, heat stress, air pollution, and food insecurity,which result in lifelong susceptibility of the impacted populations. Economic consequences include loss of productivity, infrastructure damage, adaptation, and resource conflicts, which cause financial burdens and fewer opportunities for future generations.
[1]Edith Brown Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations and Sustainable Development, 8 Am. U. Int’ l L. Rev. 19, 19-26 (1992).
[2]Stephen M. Gardiner, A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change and Intergenerational Ethics 6-8 (2011).
[3]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India); see also Upendra Baxi, The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism: Explorations in the Geographies of [In]Justice, in Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India 156-209 (S.K. Verma ed., 2000).
[4]Lavanya Rajamani, The Reach and Limits of the Climate Transparency Framework, 51 Current Opinion Env’t Sustainability 119 (2021).