Courts as Guardians of the Climate: India’s Judicial Approach to Environmental Protection

Introduction 

Climate Change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, threatening ecosystems, economies, and human well-being around the world. The threats of rising sea-levels, more frequent and extreme weather events, and the loss of biodiversity necessitate urgent action. While Sustainable Development Goal 13 (SDG 13) is crucial for addressing the need for action on climate change, meaningful progress is clearly stifled by a convergence of political, economic, and infrastructural issues. Thus, the judiciary has taken on a prominent role in enforcing climate accountability and environmental responsibility from government authorities and corporations.  
 
Through its progressive interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions in exercise of its powers, the judiciary in India has greatly influenced climate governance, especially Article 21 of the Constitution. The judiciary has interpreted Article 21 broadly, thereby inferring a right to a clean environment, to ensure that development does not happen at the expense of the ecological balance. Significant court decisions such as M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India established various legal principles like the Public Trust Doctrine and the Polluter Pays Principle as imposed duties upon the state on behalf of its duty to protect citizens from environmental degradation, becoming a model for holding the state and corporates accountable. Similarly, Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India showed how the judiciary insisted on corporate compliance with national objectives concerning climate change; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India similarly emphasized the corporate ability to be liable for pollution.

Judicial Participation in Environmental Protection.

The contributions of the judiciary in broadening the ambit of environmental protection have been extremely important, through a fresh and expanded interpretation of the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, citizens, civil society groups and NGOs started receiving legal standing to sue for activities that harmed the environment in a direct manner. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the Public Trust Doctrine, which states that the state has a duty to protect and safeguard natural resources which are made available for public use. Similarly, in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India established that the right to a clean environment is part and parcel of the right to life, presenting an opportunity for future climate litigation. Indian courts have also pulled in international principles regarding environmental protection, such as the Precautionary Principle, the Polluter Pays Principle, and Sustainable Development, thus beefing up domestic laws on environmental matters.

Holding Government Entities Accountable 

Although it is primarily the responsibility of governments to enforce environmental policies, it is now critical for the judiciary to intervene to help hold governments accountable. The mandate of SDG 13 is action on climate change, and courts in India have proactively held the government accountable. For example, in Gaurav Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India took notice, on its own motion, of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) that the government had yet to implement, and required states to prepare climate action plans. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, the court referred to continuing mandamus as accountability for conservation action within executive agencies.

Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Harm 

Judicial oversight has also extended to the private sector, especially the industries responsible for pollution. Courts have invoked the Polluter Pays Principle and have developed doctrines of absolute liability, focusing instead on condemning, without providing any legal barriers, a tax on the industry for its environmental destruction. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, the Supreme Court placed absolute liability on the chemical industries in Bichhri, Rajasthan, for causing significant soil and water pollution. In Sterlite Industries (India)Ltd. v. Union of India, the Madras High Court ordered the shutdown of the Sterlite Copper Plant for violations of the environmental norms in the operation of the copper smelting factory, emphasizing that industrial growth cannot happen at the cost of irreversible ecological harm. 

Balancing economic development with the conservation of the environment 

The judiciary has consistently attempted to balance economic development with the conservation of the environment, ensuring that projects to promote development are carried out consistent with principles of sustainability. In M. K. Ranjit Sinh v. Union of India, dealing with the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard, the Court initially restricted the construction of transmission line poles to be installed in the habitat of the bird, then eventually permitted the installation of underground transmission lines, giving some deference to the obligation of India to pursue renewable energy initiatives. This case demonstrates the Court’s practice of pragmatism in trying to seek balances as it relates to protecting biodiversity and transitioning to clean energy. Likewise, in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court imposed strict conditions on development, allowing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam but upholding rehabilitation of displaced communities and environmental protections, demonstrating the obligation of development to balance human rights and environmental protections.

Global Legal Issues in Climate Litigation 

Compared to the U.S., courts outside of the United States have also played a role in strengthening climate accountability. For instance, in the landmark case Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands, a court found that the government had a legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect human rights. In a similar vein, in Juliana v. In the U.S.A, youth activists claimed that the government infringed upon their right granted by the U.S. Constitution through its failure to engage in climate action. To expand this global movement, even in the context of environmental rights within the scope of environmental justice in India, it has worked to include environmental rights with fundamental rights despite challenges to implementing the projects properly because there is no funding.

Grassroots Activism and Community Litigation 

Grassroots activism has also reshaped climate-related litigation in India. Fishing communities in the Gulf of Kutch in Gujarat filed suit against the International Finance Corporation and the Tata Mundra Power Plant, claiming pollution damages to marine ecosystems and their livelihoods. This highlights the power of community-generated litigation and exemplifies the global movement of environmental justice, in which marginalized communities leverage the law as a tool for accountability.

Challenges to Climate Litigation 

There are a number of challenges that present barriers to full realization of climate justice, even with judicial support. Bureaucratic barriers and delays consistently thwart the implementation of court orders. Similarly, another disadvantage for judges who are assessing the courts is the scientific and technical complexity of some climate issues. Courts sometimes are in a catch-22 situation to balance developmental objectives with environmental protection. Changes to legal frameworks, additional technical information for judges, and more public participation in environmental law can help address some of the challenges of climate litigation.

Other Landmark Cases 

Numerous decisions have also established benchmarks in environmental jurisprudence in India. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court attracted the Precautionary and Polluter Pays Principles into national law and directed the closure of non-compliant tanneries in the state of Tamil Nadu. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Vehicular Pollution Case), the Court required that the public transport system in Delhi transitioned to CNG, resulting in a significant decrease of air pollution. In the Ganga Pollution Case, the Court required the ceasing of polluting industries along the Ganga River and imposed liability on a local government official for not complying with environmental requirements. These cases directly assisted in fortifying the relationship between environmental accountability with sustainable development.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, climate litigation has become a significant tool to secure accountability for environmental harm and to further SDG 13 in India. The judiciary has recognized the protection of the environment as a constitutional obligation through a broad interpretation of Article 21. Courts have made sure that governments, as well as corporates, are held accountable to take decisions that promote both development and sustainability of the environment. Cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India are still setting the pace for environmental law. While there are still concerns about regulation, it is clear that the new role of the judiciary represents an important contribution toward addressing climate justice and securing a sustainable future.