Climate Justice & The Indian Constitution: Reimagining Environmental Rights in a Warming India
This Blog is Written by Surbhi
Agrawal, 4th Year, B.A. LL.B., KES’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel
Law College, Mumbai. & Vashishth Anand Choumal, 5th Year, B.A. LL.B, KES’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College, Mumbai.
Blog 12 | Edition VIII
This Blog examines climate justice
through the constitutional framework of India, with particular focus on the
evolving relationship between environmental protection, equality, dignity, and
fundamental rights. It seeks to critically engage with recent judicial
developments and emerging principles of environmental constitutionalism, while
considering the distributive, procedural, and intergenerational dimensions of
climate change. The authors aim to contribute to the contemporary legal
discourse on the constitutional responsibilities of the State and the
protection of communities disproportionately affected by environmental and
climate-related harm. Climate change is no longer merely an environmental
concern. It is increasingly a question of constitutional justice. Rising
temperatures, extreme weather events, water scarcity, crop failures and
ecological displacement affect the enjoyment of rights that the Constitution
promises to protect. For India, the constitutional significance of climate
justice has become particularly evident after the Supreme Court's decision in M.K.
Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), where the Court recognised a right
to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21.
The Constitutional Foundations of Climate Justice
The Constitution does not expressly
contain a fundamental “right against climate change”. However, its
environmental framework has developed through the interaction of fundamental
rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties. Article 21, guaranteeing
the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by the Supreme
Court to encompass conditions necessary for a dignified life, including
environmental protection. Article 48A directs the State to protect and improve
the environment, while Article 51A(g) imposes a corresponding duty upon
citizens to protect the natural environment. These provisions acquired greater
constitutional significance in M.K. Ranjitsinh. The Supreme Court
observed that Articles 48A and 51A(g), although not independently enforceable,
demonstrate the constitutional importance of the natural environment. This
understanding informs the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21. The
significance of the judgment lies in recognising that climate protection is not
merely a matter of governmental policy; it can also implicate enforceable
constitutional rights.
M.K. Ranjitsinh: From Environmental Protection to
Climate Rights
The case primarily concerned the
conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and the tension
between wildlife conservation and renewable-energy infrastructure. In examining
this conflict, the Court considered India's climate commitments, the importance
of renewable energy and the constitutional consequences of climate change. The
Court noted that although India has several environmental statutes and
climate-related policies, it does not have a single comprehensive
climate-change legislation. Nevertheless, the absence of such legislation does
not mean that individuals have no constitutional protection against
climate-related harm. The Court expressly stated that the right to be free from
the adverse effects of climate change emerges from Articles 14 and 21. It
explained that climate change affects health and life through rising
temperatures, air pollution, changing patterns of disease, droughts, flooding
and food insecurity.
Why Article 14 Matters?
The constitutional relevance of
climate justice becomes particularly visible through Article 14. Climate change
may be global, but vulnerability is unequal. A person with financial resources
may be better equipped to respond to heatwaves, floods or water shortages than
a low-income worker whose livelihood depends directly upon environmental
conditions. The Supreme Court recognised this unequal capacity to adapt. It
observed that where climate change causes shortages of food and water, poorer
communities may suffer more severely than wealthier communities, thereby
raising concerns under the constitutional guarantee of equality. Therefore, equality in the climate context
cannot always mean identical treatment. It requires the State to recognise
differing levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Climate justice
consequently gives Article 14 a substantive environmental dimension: the State
must consider not only whether climate policies exist, but also how their
consequences are distributed.
Environmental Rule of Law and Participation
Climate justice is also a question
of procedure. Environmental decisions concerning infrastructure, energy
projects, forests and land can directly affect communities. Such decisions must
therefore be transparent, reasoned and institutionally accountable. In Hanuman
Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court developed the idea
of the environmental rule of law, emphasising fair environmental laws, access
to information, public participation, accountability and access to justice.
This principle is particularly relevant to climate governance. A transition
towards renewable energy cannot be assessed only through emission reductions.
It must also consider ecological consequences, affected communities, land use
and procedural fairness. The constitutional objective should therefore be a
just transition, rather than merely a rapid transition.
Intergenerational Equity
Climate change also challenges the
Constitution to look beyond the present generation. Decisions taken today
concerning forests, energy, infrastructure and natural resources may determine
the environmental conditions inherited by future citizens. The principle of
intergenerational equity therefore requires present development to account for
long-term ecological consequences. This principle complements Articles 48A and
51A(g), which reflect a constitutional commitment to environmental stewardship.
Climate justice is consequently not limited to protecting vulnerable citizens
today; it also involves preserving the conditions necessary for future
generations to exercise their constitutional rights.
India's Evolving Climate Commitments
India's constitutional approach
operates alongside its international climate commitments. In April 2026, India
submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution for 2031–2035 to the UNFCCC.
The submission expressly refers to climate justice, equity, intergenerational
equity and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and
Respective Capabilities. These
commitments do not automatically become independently enforceable fundamental
rights. However, they form part of the broader legal and policy context within
which Indian courts understand environmental obligations.
Conclusion
Climate justice demonstrates that
environmental protection is fundamentally connected with constitutional
equality and human dignity. The Supreme Court's decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh
has moved Indian constitutional law beyond the traditional recognition of a
right to a clean environment by expressly acknowledging a right to be free from
the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21. The deeper
challenge now is implementation. Climate change requires India to reconcile
development with ecological sustainability, individual rights with collective
interests, and present needs with the claims of future generations. The Indian
Constitution therefore offers more than an environmental mandate. It provides a
framework through which climate action can be examined through equality,
dignity, participation, accountability and intergenerational justice. In an era
where environmental vulnerability increasingly determines the ability of
individuals to enjoy basic rights, climate justice is not an additional constitutional
concern. It is becoming an essential test of what the constitutional promise of
life and equality means in a warming India.
Comments
Post a Comment