Climate law in India has been an underappreciated practice, often understood as embedded within the larger paradigm of environmental law. Marginal acknowledgement of the distinct identity of climate law has been the norm in the Indian legal practice. This is paradoxical owing to the fact that India, being a part of the Global South, is already reeling under the impacts of climate change, from deadly heatwaves, inducing forest fires in the Himalayas, to short-spanned bursts of rainstorms, causing floods. Broadly, other than occasional social movements, the pattern of questioning domestic climate policies and demanding climate action has been absent across the political spectrum. This has also been manifested in the low progress on climate litigation front.
To what extent did that change in March 2024, when in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India [2024 INSC 280], the Supreme Court ruled that right against adverse effects of climate change is a fundamental right, supported by substantive rights under Articles 14 and 21? While commentators have celebrated this judgment, associating it with certain other progressive climate litigation victories across the world (including Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland), criticisms have also followed pertaining to the impact of the judgment (if any). The scope for legitimately questioning the efficacy of India’s national strategy for climate action using the newfound right also remains speculative. Nevertheless, given that climate litigation in India has started on the foundation of climate constitutionalism, an enquiry must be undertaken to assess its feasibility in accelerating climate action.
In this article, I begin with a summary of climate litigation across jurisdictions. Then I briefly discuss certain consequences of the pronouncement in M K Ranjitsinh, including the declaration of an abstract right against adverse effects of climate change without defining State obligations to enforce it. This is connected to the larger debate of how climate constitutionalism must be interpreted as more thana declaration of rights for broadening the scope of climate litigation. Following this, the Court’s discussion regarding the National Action Plan on Climate Change (‘NAPCC’) is assessed to reveal a potentially harmful effect it may have on the future of climate litigation in India.
An international pattern of challenging State action through Climate Litigation
Read more
