Environmental constitutionalism in India is mainly aimed at achieving sustainable development, which means striking a balance between ecological protection and development, primarily economic development. The Vellore Citizens Forum v. Union of India (1996) is considered a landmark decision as it expanded the interpretation of the right to life, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, to include the right to a healthy environment, sustainable development, inter-generational equity, and the polluter pays principle. Through this article, I seek to understand the consistent pattern in cases decided by the Indian Supreme Court, interlinked with climate change and the Constitution of India.
According to the Sabin Centre of Climate Change Law, the last decade has seen a rise in cases characterized as “climate litigation” in India. While the Indian Constitution does not contain the term“climate change”, the Supreme Court, in M K Ranjithsingh v. Union of India (2024), has confirmed that Indian citizens have a right to be protected against the adverse effects of climate change. This judgment is the first to recognise a constitutional right to be protected from the adverse impacts of climate change. It is also called the first “climate constitutionalism” case in India.
However, it was preceded by other climate litigation cases discussed below. In the last decade, five decisions by the Supreme Court of India can be characterized as dealing with “climate litigation”. Sabin Center’s listing of climate litigation cases begins with Hanuman Lasman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019), wherein the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct changes in the environmental clearance conditions granted to the Goa Airport. The rationale for this decision was the “necessity to maintain a balance between the need for an airport and environmental concerns”. In Association for Protection of Democratic Rights & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors (2018, the Supreme Court adjudicated the legal concerns over the decision of the State (provincial) Government to fell ‘historical’ trees for the construction of bridges. While deciding the case, the Court looked into Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes a right to a clean and healthy environment. However, it did not declare whether the felling of trees was lawful or unlawful under the existing Indian laws. To understand the economic value of the 150-year-old trees, a committee was formed to prepare guidelines to address this situation and similar situations in the future. Additionally, the court reiterated the need to “strike a balance between environmental conservation and protection on the one hand, and the right to development on the other”.
In the third case, Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (2015), the Supreme Court had to decide if the regulations that set forth the requirement to purchase a certain amount of energy from renewable energy sources were constitutionally valid. The Court acknowledged that the obligation to purchase power from renewable energy is a step towards environmental protection and, therefore, should be promoted. This is a case where the Court encouraged and supported existing energy regulations, which allowed development but equally prescribed minimal environmental requirements. Additionally, the discussion of balance and sustainable development should have been more directly discussed in the decision. The Indian jurisprudence on sustainable development is one of the most elaborate in India [16]. However, its implementation and enforceability are highly criticised.[17] The need for economic development is one of the primary reasons environmental protection laws become difficult to enforce. This case involves tariffs, protection of the environment through renewable energy usage, and a structured mechanism to implement these. Therefore, the inclusion of a discussion of sustainable development in this case strengthened the idea that economic development and environmental protection can go hand in hand. Additionally, structured administrative mechanisms can help with better enforcement in this field.
In Ashish Kumar Garg v. State of Uttarakhand and Another (2022), the Supreme Court had to address a petition involving the felling to widen the roads in Uttarakhand. The Court considered the human-nature conflict a serious issue and held that development should be balanced with protecting the environment. The Court accepted the proposal to fell trees for road development, but also suggested certain modifications in the project. Finally, in MK Ranjithsingh v. Union of India (2024), the federal government’s project to install a renewable energy project and energy distribution system was challenged because the overhead distribution line was causing hundreds of thousands of Great Indian Bustards’ deaths. The Court discussed the report of a committee within its decision, which explored and evaluated solutions that balanced conservation and protection of Bustards with renewable energy development in India. The Court also confirmed that in climate change and climate action, “[I]t is not a binary choice between conservation and development, but rather a dynamic interplay”.
Additionally, the Court said that not having a reliable renewable energy source would create obstacles to the economic development of several communities with a right to development. Therefore, to foster holistic economic growth, the Court allowed the renewable energy projects in a way that continued to disproportionately impact the biodiversity in India disproportionately. Based on the analysis of the five cases above, the patterns of constitutionally founded climate litigation in India can be inferred. Firstly, the factual premises of four out of five cases are primarily the conflict between economic interests and human development on the one hand and the protection of the environment and non-human entities in the environment on the other.
The only exception to these five cases was the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Case, where the petitioners had challenged an existing regulation to understand their financial obligations in climate change. The factual matrix of four out of five cases discussed above highlights the need for development that can be seen as economic and infrastructure development. Two cases were about the development of road infrastructure to allow for a better human life, and the cost of developing these infrastructures was the non-human entity of the environment, trees, in both cases. In the Ranjithsinh case, the non-human entity in conflict with human development was the animals –Great Indian Bustards. Secondly, the jurisprudential rationale for deciding all the cases is sustainable development, which implies a balancing strategy between human development and environmental protection. As long as actions align with this jurisprudence, the constitutional courts will likely support the decision. Alternatively, the Court has also used the need to balance environmental protection with human development as a justification for government action that may be detrimental to the environment. This need to balance is inherent in the rationale of sustainable development. Finally, the overall climate of constitutional jurisprudence is an excellent first step. However, implementing these decisions at the ground level can have several challenges. The courts have limited implementation powers, and climate law becomes an administrative law question.
In the light of the cases discussed above, the Courts seem to prioritise human development, which includes infrastructure development, economic development, and social development, over environmental protection, which includes biodiversity protection (trees, animals, birds, etc.) and protection of non-human natural resources. In cases like the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights Case, the Court also seems to legitimise environmentally destructive activities like the felling of trees for human development, and additionally, confirming that attaching an economic value to environmental resources like trees is the solution that governments should look for or prioritise. Even in Ranjithsingh’s Case, the Federal government had cited a lack of economic resources to institute underground electricity distribution cables, due to which the Court allowed overhead electricity grid/cable installations at the cost of the death of more than 100,000 Great Indian Bustards. While human development is necessary and inevitable, the idea of environmental protection hangs by a thread, highlighting the need to balance human development with environmental protection. The jurisprudence of balancing the issue has not seen any change over time. However, it is time for a departure and ratcheting up the jurisprudence for environmental protection.
References
1. Supreme Court of India, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union Of India & Ors (1996 INSC 952), Judgment of 28 August 1996.
2. B.K. Chakravarty, ‘Environmentalism: Indian Constitution and Judiciary’ (2006) 48:1 Journal of the Indian Law Institute.
3. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, ‘India’ (2025) https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/supreme-court-india/.
4. Supreme Court of India, M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union Of India (2024 INSC 280), Judgment of 21 March 2024.
5. Chhaya Bhardwaj and Daniel Stein, ‘Held v State of Montana: Environmental Constitutionalism in the US and its Comparison with India’ (2024) Jindal Global Law Review. 6. Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, ‘India’ (2025) https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/supreme-court-india/.
7. Supreme Court of India, Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union Of India (2019 INSC 434), Judgment of 29 March 2019.
8. Shailendra Kumar, ‘Sketching the Limits of Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Constitutional Necessity’ (2020).
9. Supreme Court of India, Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019 INSC 434), Judgment of 29 March 2019, para. 146.
10. Supreme Court of India, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. The State of West Bengal and Others (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25047 of 2018), Order of 25 March 2021.
11. Supreme Court of India, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights v. The State of West Bengal and Others (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25047 of 2018), Order of 25 March 2021.
12. Supreme Court of India, Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (2015 INSC 996), Judgment of 13 May 2015.
13. Namely, the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Obligation) Regulations, 2007, and the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable Energy Certificate and Renewable Purchase Obligation Compliance Framework) Regulations, 2010.
14. Uttarakhand High Court, Ashish Kumar Garg v. State Of Uttarakhand And Another, (Writ Petition (PIL) No. 68 of 2022), Order of 22 June 2022.
Environmental Law and Justice 
Leave a comment