Climate Litigation in India: Rising Judicial Activism or Executive Failure?

Abstract

In India, nowadays Climate litigation is not only confined to traditional environmental disputes but is interlaced with constitutional and human rights. Supreme Court as well as High Courts, acts as proactive institution while interpreting environmental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This undermines the fact that while judicial activism has contributed significantly to climate justice, it shows that there remains various deficiency in legislative action and executive enforcement. This paper examines landmark climate litigate cases such as Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MC Mehta v. Union of India and ongoing issues of implementing policy reforms like National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC). It also compares Indian judicial trends with global counterparts in the Netherlands and Pakistan to evaluate the efficacy and boundaries of judicial intervention. The study embraces a doctrinal-comparative methodology and encompasses qualitative analysis of key holdings, academic literature, and legislative texts. The paper asserts that judicial activism can be necessary in the short term but it should not substitute to integral executive responsibility.


Keywords

Climate Litigation, Judicial Activism, Environmental Law, Executive Failure, Article-21, National Green Tribunal, Policy Enforcement

Introduction

The soaring climate crisis has placed India’s legal and conventional frameworks under inspection. India is one of that country which is vulnerable to climate change and it faces enlarging pressure to regulate emissions, preserve biodiversity and manage natural resources sustainably. However, while the executive branch has enacted policies such as National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), implementation remains stagnant and collapsed. In this void, the judiciary has emerged as a focal performer.

Supreme Court has interpreted Article-21 of the Indian Constitution which is the right to life and that includes the right to clean and sustainable environment^1.  Landmark cases for instance MC Mehta v. Union of India² , Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India³  , and the most contemporary Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha⁴ reflect the judiciary’s proactive perspective. Through Public Interest Litigation (PILs), citizens have look for judicial remedies for environmental degeneration, and the courts have responded fiercely. Yet, this judicial conclusiveness raises question: Is the judiciary remunerating for an executive failure? Are courts equipped to design and implement complex climate policies?

This paper seeks to warily assess whether India’s climate litigation landscape represents uprising judicial activism or a deeper malaise within executive governance. With the combination of doctrinal and comparative methodologies, this paper examines case laws, legislative inaction and scholarly discourse. Also, the comparisons with the climate rulings in Pakistan (Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan)⁵ and the Netherlands (Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands)⁶ help place India’s approach within a global context. 

One cannot deny that India’s judiciary has filled a critical flaw. In T.N. Godavarman Thrirumulpad v. Union of India, the forest governance was taken over by Supreme Court successfully, issuing the directions that reshaped conservation topography across the country⁷. Likewise in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India, the court upheld the Doctrine of Intergenerational Equity, emphasizing the long-term costs of short-term development gains⁸.

But while these verdicts are celebrated for their lucidity and dedication, it also reveals a deeper institutional imbalance. The courts are stepping in not because they want to, but because they have to. The executive’s failure to execute environmental laws, including the Environment (Protection) Act,1986¹¹, or to authorize regulatory bodies like the Central Pollution Control Board, give back a structural neglect of environmental governance¹². Even the State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs), which were to operate as sub-national arms of the NAPCC, often exist only on paper¹³. 

On the other side, scholars have elevated legitimate concerns about judicial overreach. Courts are not technocratic bodies: they are not furnished to design emissions strategies or evaluate quality of air sign, As Lavanya Rajamani highlights while the judiciary can interpret rights expansively, the responsibility of long-term climate implementation must rest with elected and accountable institutions^10.

Looking abroad, the Leghari case in Pakistan illustrates how courts can generate administrative action without overstepping their role by building a Climate Change Commission rather than issuing prescriptive orders¹⁴. Similarly, in the Urgenda case, the Dutch judiciary invoked human rights to impel the state to lower carbon emissions, a bold move, but one that sparked debates about democratic accountability and enforeceability^15,16.

So where does this desert India? Caught between ambitious judicial decisions and a delaying administrative system, the Indian climate litigation landscape is both inspiring and unsustainable. While the courts have rested essential principles like Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, Public Trust Doctrine⁹, their efforts frequently lack follow through.

What’s needed is a reorganization of institutional roles. Strengthening environmental courts like the National Green Tribunal¹⁷, enhancing citizen engagement¹⁹, allocating budgets transparently²⁰, very importantly, holding the executive liable through legislative supervision, are non-negotiable if legal triumphs are to translate into long-term environment toughness.

The paper concludes with recommendations and suggestions to harmonize judicial leadership with administrative responsibility, ensuring climate governance that is not only fair but also environmentally conscious and systemic.

Research Methodology

This research adopts a doctrinal and comparative methodology. The doctrinal characteristic involves a detailed inspection of statutes, constitutional provisions, case laws and judicial pronouncements related to environmental and climate litigation in India. The primary objectives include the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 21, 48A, and 51(g), environmental legislations like Environment (Protection) Act. 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Case laws have been scrutinized using the 20^th Bluebook citation format for consistency and academic accuracy.

The comparative aspect of the methodology necessitates drawing parallels between Indian climate litigation trends and those in additional jurisdictions like Netherlands and Pakistan. For instance, the Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan⁵ case shows how court intervention led to the genesis of a Climate Change Commission. Likewise, the Dutch case Urgenda Foundation v. State of Netherlands⁶ set international precedent by holding the state accountable for climate inactivity.

This research also encompasses qualitative research techniques, which include the review of academic journal articles, legal periodical, reports by international environmental bodies (such as UNEP and IPCC), and official statistics on climate policies. These qualitative understanding provides socio-legal perspectives on the potency and limitation of judicial activism in the context of environmental governance. Interviews or observational surveys were not supervised due to the doctrinal nature of the research.

To ensure legal reliability and intellectual discipline, all sources were cross- referenced from trusted legal databases such as SCC Online, Manupatra, HeinOnline and JSTOR. The combination of doctrinal, comparative, and qualitative approaches ensures overarching, multi-dimensional understanding of the research question.

Qualitative Research 

This paper involves interpretation of legal texts and understanding the societal suggestions of judicial decisions for qualitative research. The study relies on verdicts, policy documents, academic work to evaluate whether judicial actions in climate litigation genuinely promote environmental equity or merely fill the void left by executive inaction.

For instance, in MC Mehta v. Union of India²¹, the Supreme Court issued widespread orders to control the pollution in Delhi, signifying its willingness to intervene where administrative agencies had crashed. Correspondingly, in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, the Court welcomed the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle as a component of Indian environmental jurisprudence. These principles were later codified by National Green Tribunal (NGT) in its statutory interpretation²².

Scholars such as Shibani Ghosh and Lavanya Rajamani contend that while Indian Courts have enlarged the horizon of environmental rights, they sometimes lack scientific expertise or long-term enforcement capacity²³. Judicial decisions frequently fail to consider economic, technological, or administrative viability, which ideally falls under the executive’s domain.

Reports by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Centre for Policy Research (CPR) in India reveal that while India has launched several climate missions, such as the National Solar Mission and National Electric Mobility Mission, their implementation has lagged because of bureaucratic inertia and political indifference²⁴. In contrast, judicial systems have continued to push the climate agenda, although through limited tools of adjudication.

Therefore, the qualitative analysis reveals a paradox: the judiciary has reformed the de facto environmental watchdog, but this is a compensatory purpose rather than a sustainable solution.


Review of Literature 

Indian scholarship on climate litigation reflects escalating interest in the role of courts in green governance. Shibani Ghosh (2019), in her study “Litigating Climate Claims in India”,²⁵

Highlights the fragmented nature of climate specific cause of action and emphasizes the lack of comprehensive climate legislation in India. She points out that the mass Indian climate litigation stems from broader environmental cases rather than targeted climate- based petitions.

On the other hand, Lavanya Rajamani explores the global implications of climate change law and the Indian judiciary’s role. Her 2011 article “The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights- Based Perspectives in Climate Disputes” argues that courts often step in due to policy voids and systemic administrative lethargy²⁶.

A significant scholarly debate focuses on the role of PILs in environmental adjudication. In MC Mehta, the use of PIL modified how courts approached environmental issues. Research by Aparna Chandra and Sital Kalantry (2020) critiques this trend by warning of judicial overreach and a weakening of democratic structure²⁷.Even so, judicial intervention remains crucial in the absence of legislative clarity and executive will.

International literature provides illuminating comparisons. In Urgenda Foundation v. State of Netherlands, the Dutch Supreme Court held the state liable for failing to meet its emission reduction targets²⁸. Similarly, Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan involved judicial direction to establish a Climate Change Commission, underlining the judiciary’s transformative potential in climate governance²⁹.

Many scholars have traced the wider shifts in global environment legislation and governance in the evolution of climate litigation in India. One such study by Ridhima Pandey and Ritwick Dutta (2021) in the Indian Law Review proclaims that the administration of Indian environmental jurisprudence started to shift remarkably after the Paris Agreement of 2015^30. Based on their statements, courts became more principal in climate- related decision -making by reason of policymaking itself had obstructed. They also call attention to how children’s rights- especially in the situation of climate harm have started shaping disputes in environmental PILs. A key example is Pandey v. Union of India, filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), where a minor child filed lawsuit against the government for not able to address climate change^31.

A close pattern evolves in the Centre for Science and Environment’s 2022 Report, which shows a sharp rise in the number of environmental issues brought before the NGT. Many of these includes pollution, deforestation or illegal mining all of which contributes straight or without making sense to climate modification. The reports clarify this judicial trend not as a sign of an active legal culture alone, but also as a suggestion of the declining trust in executive imposition³².

In international discussion, Michael Burger and Jessica Wentz (2015), writing in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, suggest that courts around the world are with time turning to Constitutional rights to define and broaden climate commitments. Their assessment is especially material to India, where Article 21- the right to life has been used to justify wide ranging habitat protections, even in the absence of comprehensible climate legislation³³.

A relative lens presented by Jacqueline Peel and Hari Osofsky (2018) in the Transnational Environmental Law Journal brings out an important tension. They argue that while courts in developing countries often play an essential role in pushing climate action ahead, there’s also a real danger of overstepping institutional boundaries, especially when the executive and legislature are sidelines. This replicates the Indian experience, where courts frequently take action because other branches of government have failed in responding effectively³⁴.
Further insights come from the composition of Manju Menon and Kanchi Kohli (2020), who conducted an empirical study for the Centre for Policy Research. Their research shows that court judgements, especially that were issued by the NGT and are executed with assorted success. In some states, political assistance leads to better follow-through, but in others, directives endure largely figurative³⁵. This raises uncertainty about whether the courts acting alone can drive meaningful environmental reform.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in its 2023 global record noted that India ranks amid the top five countries regarding environmental litigation volume²⁴. While most of these cases are not specifically labelled as “climate litigation” numerous demand issues like urban development, forest loss, and pollution, which have deep climate interdependencies. The report describes the Indian judiciary as a kind of “unofficial climate regulator”, intervening when formal policy apparatus fail.

Legal expert Lavanya Rajamani (2021) reflects on this occurrence by re-examining the Indian Supreme Court’s “green bench” era. She states that this period laid the preliminaries for today’s climate aware decisions, especially in how courts creatively use constitutional principle in the absence of certain climate laws¹⁰. Harmoniously, Shibani Ghosh (2022), writing in the Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution, inspects how principles like “polluter pays” and “precautionary principle” have gradually taken on a climate dimension. For instance, these doctrines are now applied not just in contamination cases, but also in those involving heat emissions, deforestation, and carbon-intensive projects³⁶.

Constitutional theorists Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Neha Jain (2020) attach another layer to the analysis. In their article in the Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, they state that judicial intervention in ecological matters has not been out of choice, but out of requirement. They note that when the executive branch again and again fails to implement laws, courts are left with little alternative but to step in and by doing it stretches the boundaries of what courts are traditionally expected to do³⁷.

A policy document by Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) (2022) hold up this view. It recognizes over 200 environment-related exhibitions filed between 2015 and 2022 that involve environmentally immediate and alarmed situations³⁸. Many of these cite Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, which lay down the state’s environmental duties and citizens’ responsibility to protect nature³⁹. Courts have increasingly referred to these provisions to justify active climate decisions.

Within the frame of reference, the NGT has emerged as a central figure. Although it doesn’t have a clear instruction to resolve climate cases, its adaptable procedures like allowing broader standing and think tank, make it more accessible to ordinary citizens. Scholars like Armin Rosencranz and Ashish Fernandes (2023) praise this generality but also alerts that the NGT’s non- enforcement power often reduces its decisions to paper orders with little tangible effects⁴⁰.

In a progressive spirit, Vrinda Bhandari and Anirudh Burman (2023) have inspected how the future of climate litigation may enhance more cross-functional, especially involving data governance and digital regulation⁴¹. For example, questions around outflow tracking, smart grids, and digital environmental monitoring may soon appear in courtrooms demanding a judiciary that can keep up with accelerated technological innovation.

Adding to the richness of this debate is Anushka Singh’s (2022) work in the Environmental Justice Journal. She emphasizes on how indigenous and forest-dwelling communities are slowly becoming more noticeable in environmental lawsuits⁴². Even so courts have sometimes known these voices, Singh notes that such recognition is at odds with and often limited to important gestures rather than structural transformation.

The discourse is also shaped by prominent thinkers like Professor Upendra Baxi, who offers sophisticated understanding. He opposes extreme resorting to the judiciary to secure what are essentially political and policy problems. Yet, he also admits that in times of institutional failure, courts often emerge as “trustees of the future”, especially when climate change threatens human rights and sustainable legacy⁴³.

Comparative legal literature also shows that India is not the only one. Cases like Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (2015) and rulings from countries like Colombia and the Philippines throwback similar trend, tribunal using constitutional environmental rights to urge governments into action¹⁴. These foreign examples have even found mention in Indian court submissions and school of thought.

Finally, commentators like S. Chandrasekharan (2023) elevate more cautious voice. He contends that excessively depending on judges for climate action may undermine parliamentary debate, especially in national problems where the environment overlaps with state powers⁴⁴. This is a genuine concern in India, where jurisdictional conflicts often arise between central and state governments.

Taken together, the literature depicts a complex idea. India’s judiciary has clearly become an essential force in the climate management space but it does so within an environment of underperformance of executive and policy inertia. Scholars agree that while judicial activism has helped keep climate issues in the spotlight, it cannot restore the requirement for well-built environmental legislation, active public institutions, and sustained political commitment.

Suggestions

1. Classification of Environmental Awareness: Parliament should authorize Climate Change Act. The process can be done by assigning responsibilities to each ministry 
2. Capacity Building for Judiciary: To advise on complex environment matters, courts and environmental benches should integrate technical experts and scientific panels.
3. Strengthening National Green Tribunal: For greater financial autonomy and to ensure obedience, NGT should be empowered with the firm implementation mechanism.
4. Inter-institutional Collaboration: Unity should be facilitated between ministries and judicial authorities by official frameworks such as NITI Aayog.

5. Public Engagement: To make climate litigation supplementary public and inclusive, awareness and legal education about climate rights should be promoted.

Conclusion

India’s climate litigation orbit offers promise and contradiction. On one hand, judicial activism has filled essential governance gaps, ensuring that environmental rights are protected under the Constitution. On the other hand, this very activism underscores a profound executive inertia and lack of institutional coherence.

The judiciary cannot be the sole guardian of climate justice. Sustainable environmental governance should rely on cooperative federalism, scientific expertise, public participation, and policy coherence. Judicial interventions, while essential, must complement- not substitute- executive action. As India readies to meet its climate commitments under the Paris Agreement and beyond, it is time for all three branches of government to share the burden of ecological conservation.

Footnotes

1. Constitution of India- Article 21.
2. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395.
3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.
4. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 SCC Online SC 897.
5. Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 25501/2015 (Lahore High Court).
6. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, Supreme Court of Netherlands (20^th December 2019).
7. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 S.C.C. 267 
8.  Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2011) 7 S.C.C. 338 
9.  A.P. Pollution Control Bd. v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 S.C.C. 718 
10.  Lavanya Rajamani,The Increasing Role of the Indian Judiciary in Climate Governance,27 Rev. Eur. Cmty. & International Environmental Law 25 (2018).
11. The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, INDIA CODE (1986).
12.  Comptroller & Auditor Gen. of India, Performance Audit of Pollution Control Boards (2020).
13.  Ministry of Env’t, Forest & Climate Change, Status of SAPCC Implementation, Gov’t of India (2022).
14. Ashgar Leghari, W/P. No. 25501/2015 (Lahore High Court, Pak.).
15. Urgenda, ECLI\:NL\:HR:2019:2007 (Neth.).
16. Harro van Asselt, The Urgenda Ruling: Legal Revolution or Symbolic Victory?  9 Climate Litigation 1 (2020).
17. The National Green Tribunal Act, No. 19 of 2010, INDIA CODE (2010).
18. Gitanjali Gill, A Green Tribunal for India, 22 J. Environmental. L. 1 (2010).
19. Shibani Ghosh, Public Interest Litigation and the Environment in India, in Courts and the Environment 146 (2014).
20. NITI Aayog, Strategy for New India @75, Chapter-18: Sustainable Environment (2018)
21. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 60.
22. National Green Tribunal Act, No. 19 of 2010, Section 20.
23. Shibani Ghosh, Litigating Climate Claims in India, 114, American Journal of International Law UNBOUND 45 (2020).
24. United Nations Environment Programme, The Emissions Gap Report 2023 | New Climate Institute https://share.google/4Im5dCDJdFTXRzJvZ
25. Shibani Ghosh, Climate Change Litigation in India: Exploring Opportunities and Challenges, Centre for Policy Research (2019) https://share.google/YaS4Tkjw4lyiFwGIw
26. Lavanya Rajamani, The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights- Based Perspectives in Climate Disputes, 22 J.ENVTL.L. 391(2011).
27. Aparna Chandra & Sital Kalantry, Environmental PILs in India: A tale of Judicial Overreach, 6 INDIAN J. CONST. L. 112 (2020).
28. Urgenda Foundation, supra note 6.
29. Leghari, supra note 5. 
30. Ridhima Pandey & Ritwick Dutta, Children’s Climate Rights and Judicial Remedies in India, 5 Indian L. Rev. 101 (2021).
31.  Pandey v. Union of India, Appeal No. 187 of 2017, National Green Trib. (India).
32.  Centre for Science & Environment, Green Tribunal Watch: Environmental Case Trends and Gaps (2022) (https://www.cseindia.org).
33. Michael Burger & Jessica Wentz, Advancing Climate Governance Through Rights-Based Litigation, 40 Column J. Environmental 217 (2015).
34. Jacqueline Peel & Hari M. Osofsky, A Rights Turn in Climate Change Litigation? 7 Transnat’l Environmental law 37 (2018).
35. Manju Menon & Kanchi Kohli, Implementation of Environmental Orders in India: A Case Study of NGT Directives, Centre for Policy Research (2020), (https://cprindia.org).
36.  Shibani Ghosh, The Environment and the Indian Constitution, in The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution 451 (Sujit Choudhry et al. eds., 2016).
37. Sudhir Krishnaswamy & Neha Jain, Judicial Environmentalism and Constitutional Governance in India, 10 Indian J. Constitutional Law 93 (2020).
38.  Council on Energy, Environment & Water, Mapping Climate-Related Litigation in India (2022), (https://www.ceew.in).
39. The Constitution of India, arts. 48A & 51A(g).
40.  Armin Rosencranz & Ashish Fernandes, Climate Litigation and the National Green Tribunal: Achievements and Challenges, 17 J. Environment Justice 39 (2023).
41. Vrinda Bhandari & Anirudh Burman, Data, Tech, and Climate Law in India: A Future-Ready Framework, Ctr. for Tech. & Policy (2023), (https://www.cprindia.org).
42. Anushka Singh, Climate Justice and Indigenous Claims in India, 14 Envtl. Just. J. 55 (2022).
43. Upendra Baxi, The Judiciary as Trustee of the Future? Climate Litigation and the Limits of Adjudication, in Law and the Environment in South Asia 89 (2021).
44. S. Chandrasekharan, Judicial Overreach in Environmental Federalism: A Critical Inquiry, 31 National L. Sch. India Rev. 102 (2023).