Abstract

India’s legal response to climate change has not arrived through legislation. It has arrived through courts. This paper maps the trajectory of climate-related litigation in India across three interconnected dimensions: the doctrinal shift from pollution-centric environmental law to explicit climate constitutionalism; a taxonomy of Indian climate cases drawing on the framework of climate consciousness, climate accountability, and climate futurity, supplemented by analysis of under-recognized adaptation and vulnerability litigation; and a critical assessment of what rights-based, court-driven governance can and cannot accomplish in the absence of dedicated climate legislation. The paper situates India’s experience within a global ‘rights turn’ in climate litigation identified by Peel and Osofsky (2018) as a discernible shift from statutory to rights-based arguments across multiple jurisdictions while arguing that constitutional innovation alone cannot substitute for statutory scaffolding. The promise of [1]M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the first judicial acknowledgment that Articles 14 and 21 protect citizens from the adverse effects of climate change, cannot deliver its full potential unless Parliament follows through with enabling legislation. The paper draws on a range of Indian and comparative case law to argue that judicial creativity and legislative action are complements, not substitutes, in the governance of climate change.[2]

Keywords: Climate Constitutionalism; Climate Litigation; Article 21; Judicial Activism; National Green Tribunal; Intergenerational Equity; M.K. Ranjitsinh; Rights Turn; Environmental Rule of Law; India.

I. Introduction

India sits in an uncomfortable position in global climate governance. It is simultaneously a top emitter, acutely exposed to climate risk, and still without a standalone climate law. India’s average temperature has climbed by 0.86°C since 1901; extreme weather events more than doubled between the 1970s and 2023, rising from around 100 per year to 271; glacial retreat in some Himalayan basins exceeds 40%; and sea levels along Indian coasts are rising at 3.3 mm per year, putting over 250 million coastal inhabitants at risk (Khandwe, 2025). Climate-related disasters cost India close to USD 87 billion in economic losses in 2022 alone, and projections suggest the country could forfeit up to 2.8% of annual GDP by 2050 under current warming trajectories.[3]

Against this backdrop, Parliament has remained largely silent. India’s statutory architecture for the environment the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, the Water and Air Pollution Prevention Acts, and the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 was designed to address localized pollution and resource conservation, not the temporal and spatial complexity of climate change. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) of 2008 and India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement are policy instruments, not legally binding mandates carrying enforceable compliance mechanisms.

Into this vacuum, the judiciary has stepped. Through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), constitutional interpretation, and the progressive expansion of Article 21, Indian courts have steadily woven climate considerations into environmental adjudication. Gill and Ramachandran (2021) describe the Indian judiciary as a ‘lever of transformation’ in climate governance, one that, despite the absence of comprehensive domestic climate legislation, is slowly addressing climate cases through decisions that create conditions for incremental but cumulative change. At the same time, a global ‘rights turn’ in climate litigation, identified by Peel and Osofsky (2018) as a discernible shift across multiple jurisdictions, has found expression in India, culminating in the landmark 2024 [4]Ranjitsinh judgment.

This paper proceeds in three parts. Section II traces the doctrinal evolution from environmental to climate constitutionalism. Section III maps Indian climate litigation through the tripartite lens of climate consciousness, accountability, and futurity, supplemented by a distinct analysis of adaptation and vulnerability cases. Section IV critically assesses the strengths and structural limits of court-driven climate governance, with reference to the global rights-turn literature and the persistent legislative gap.

[1] Jacqueline Peel & Hari M. Osofsky, A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation?, 7 Transnat’lEnvtl. L. 37 (2018).

[2] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280 (India).

[3] Aditya Anand Khandwe, Climate Change Litigation in India: Rising Judicial Activism post–MK Ranjitsinh v Union of India (2024), 7 Int’l J. Multidisciplinary Rsch. IJFMR250663229 (2025).

[4] Gitanjali Nain Gill & Gayathri Ramachandran, Sustainability Transformations, Environmental Rule of Law and the Indian Judiciary: Connecting the Dots through Climate Change Litigation, 23 Envtl. L. Rev. 228, 232 (2021).