Is Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India Going to Change the Future of Climate Change Litigation in India? – An Assessment of the Indian Supreme Court’s Recent Order
Picture credits: Gunjan Soni, Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve (Maharashtra, India).
By Gunjan Soni and Jui Dharwadkar
Climate litigation has proved to be an important tool to compel climate action from States. While India has been active in environmental litigation, Indian Courts have rarely heard climate change cases. The cases that have reached Indian Courts have not received much active attention from the Courts, primarily because of the lack of an umbrella climate legislation in India. However, this trend may change now with the Indian Supreme Court for the first time hearing a case—the Ridhima Pandey appeal—directly challenging the Indian government’s inaction on climate change issues. This raises a crucial question—is the time ripe for India to see the wave of active and effective climate change litigation? The Ridhhima Pandey appeal (Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2021, Supreme Court of India) reflects a real opportunity for the Supreme Court to address this question and set the stage for future climate litigation in India, which is highly necessary considering the urgency of the climate crisis and there being no window for disappointment left.
1. BACKGROUND
India’s vulnerability to climate change challenges signifies the need for robust climate change action at the national level. Recent changes in climate, including unprecedented spells of extreme heat, declining monsoons, and rising sea levels, have aggravated the climate crisis. It is also relevant to note that since the effects of climate change disproportionately impact vulnerable and economically weaker sections of society—who have fewer resources to adapt—it is counter-intuitive for India to not prioritise climate issues. However, the lack of an umbrella legislation in India to compel action against greenhouse gas emissions shows the limited importance attributed to climate change policy and law in India.
To evoke a judicial response to this climate crisis, in 2017 a 9-year-old girl, Ridhima Pandey, approached the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”), a statutory body established to deal with environmental law cases in India. She alleged that the current government’s actions and policies to combat climate change are inadequate and non-compliant with its international obligations under the Paris Agreement and other climate treaties (“Ridhima Pandey NGT Case”). Relying on cases like Urgenda and Leghari, the petitioner argued that children and future generations have the right to a healthy environment, however, climate change disproportionately affects them. Therefore, safeguarding the environment is crucial to protect the rights of the children and future generations. As such, the petitioner requested the NGT to direct the government to undertake measures like incorporating climate change as an assessment factor for conducting environmental impact assessments (“EIA”) and preparing an emissions inventory and a carbon budget. The petitioner based her arguments on several fundamental principles relating to climate change including intergenerational rights, the public trust doctrine, the precautionary principle, and the principle of sustainable development. Despite the significance of the climate issues raised, such as inadequate government policies to combat climate change and violation of the right to a healthy environment, the NGT dismissed the application in a summary two-page decision, stating that the existing environmental statutory scheme covers EIA’s and that there was no need for further directions.
NGT’s dismissal has been faced with criticism and disappointment. While the Ridhima Pandey NGT case is considered the “most prominen[t] instance of youth-led climate litigation” in India, the NGT’s approach in deciding this case was termed as “superficial”, and the Tribunal was accused of “ignor[ing] most of the main points of the case”. It has been argued that the NGT “has shown reluctance to enter” the area of climate litigation.
In 2019, an appeal against the NGT’s order was filed before the Indian Supreme Court. Currently, the case is pending before the Supreme Court at the pleadings stage (the case will be next heard on 30 July 2025). By way of a procedural order dated 21 February 2025 (“Order”), the Court acknowledged the “the inadequacies of extant legal framework” in addressing the challenges posed by climate change. For a holistic assessment of the issue, it impleaded eight Indian ministries to ensure “convergence of ideas, collaborative governance, and institutional synergy” for the “operationalisation of climate policies” [para 6, Order].
Therefore, the Order itself recognised that current Indian laws remain deficient in addressing the climate change crisis. As explained in Section II below, this ‘tenor’ differs from the previous treatment afforded by Indian Courts to climate cases. These previous cases highlighted the cautious approach adopted by the Indian adjudicatory bodies to intervene in the government’s policies. This calls attention to two broader questions: (i) whether it is about time that the Indian climate change litigation landscape gains the traction it needs, and (ii) does India need to implement a comprehensive climate law as opposed to the current fragmented environmental law regime? This blog seeks to analyse the Supreme Court’s remarks in its Order to assess whether this time the Court may be able to seize the opportunity and address the critical need for a comprehensive regulation implementing India’s climate change responsibility. This analysis is done based on two considerations: (i) apparent change in climate science, and the (ii) impact of national and international developments in climate change law. The authors ultimately conclude that given the urgency demanded by the climate crisis, the Supreme Court is expected to pronounce a climate friendly decision and direct the government to take necessary action for combating climate change and fulfilling India’s international obligations. The decision will also be highly relevant to set the stage for future climate litigation, which is likely to gain traction before Indian Courts in light of the Advisory Opinions on climate change obligations of the States, either pronounced by or pending before the international courts.
2. THE RIDHIMA PANDEY ORDER
The five-page order provides a bird’s-eye view on the issue of climate change and the urgent action it requires. In the Order, the Court recognised the “importance of the matter relating to carbon emissions and … larger issue of climate change”, specifically acknowledging that climate change has “ramifications beyond mere environmental degradation” and that it “transcends environmentalism” [para 5, Order]. It specified that climatic events have the impact of disrupting ecosystems and socio-economic structures, leading to profound economic consequences. These consequences are even more acute in countries like India where “vast populations depend on climate-sensitive sectors for subsistence”. The Court described climate change as an “exigent matter of economic resilience, social justice, and sustainable development.”
In addition to acknowledging international and national efforts to curb climate change, the Court also highlighted the necessity to reassess the existing Indian environmental statutes to incorporate “climate-centric enforceable mandates.” In the Court’s opinion, this reassessment “is contingent upon the robustness and synchronisation of an institutional framework under various [Indian] ministries” such as environment, energy, power, and development, and requires “inter-ministerial coordination” to shift away from the current siloed approach. The Court noted that without this institutional framework, there lies a persistent risk of “accountability deficit” and “operational [in]effectiveness”.
The tenor of this order is unlike any orders passed in earlier cases involving issues related to climate change issues. It shows the Court’s willingness to treat climate change as a problem which extends beyond its framing as an environmental issue and one that requires institutional coordination and structuring. However, the question remains: what brought this change?
3. CLARITY ON CLIMATE SCIENCE AND INCREASED VISIBILITY OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS
Recent reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shifted the focus to climate science, stating unequivocally that global temperatures have reached 1.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. It is expected that if the current legal framework to curb climate change remains unchanged, the global temperature will rise to 2.7 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Under the Paris Agreement, the States agreed to limit global warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius” above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Alarmingly, in 2024 the global temperature exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius making it the “hottest year on record” and seeing a substantial surge in climate change related catastrophes.
India is also majorly affected by climate change. The country saw its worst heat waves resulting in the deaths of more than 1000 people. It also was affected by other climatic impacts like droughts, famines and floods, which caused destruction of crucial infrastructure, disrupted livelihoods and led to loss of human lives. Despite these climate tragedies, India’s greenhouse gas emissions are “expected to rise [by] 4.6% in 2024, the highest among major economies.” India is also the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
It is evident that while climate change impacts have worsened over time, climate policies have not improved to curb these changes. Considering the visible impacts of climate change and developments in climate science, there is a broader awareness of climate change impacts, pushing litigants to turn to domestic courts for remedies and nudging courts to consider climate science in their decision-making. Possibly, this clarity and development informed the litigants and will also inform the Indian judiciary, thereby altering the course of climate litigation in India.
4. RECOGNITION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL “RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE” AND THE RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH OF INDIAN COURTS
Indian Courts have historically adopted a rights-based approach to decide environmental law cases, linking environmental issues with the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. In the past, expanding the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, i.e. the fundamental right to life, the Supreme Court has recognized a “hygienic environment as an integral facet of right to healthy life” and ruled that the right to a clean, safe, decent, pollution-free and wholesome environment is a legitimate expectation flowing from Article 21. The rights-based approach was not employed in terms of climate change and its adverse effects until last year. However, paving the way for future climate change litigation, the Supreme Court in MK Ranjitsinh v. Union of India recognised the “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” as a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In the M.K. Ranjitsinh case, the petitioner requested the court to prevent the government from granting permission for the installation of overhead power lines for renewable energy projects in the habitats of near extinction birds–the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican. Therefore, the central issue before the Court was how to balance the protection of biodiversity with India’s responsibility to meet its international climate change obligations under the Paris Agreement. To resolve this green versus green conflict, the Court took a comprehensive approach, evaluating India’s obligations under various international agreements and considering the broader context of competing interests. It recognized that “India has set a target for 2030, aiming to increase its installed renewable energy capacity to 450 GW” [para 15, M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024, SC)]. The Court emphasized that protecting biodiversity must be aligned with promoting renewable energy to advance social equity. It also assessed the constitutional framework, ultimately declaring that the right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change is a fundamental right under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life) of the Indian Constitution.
Unlike previous climate cases, the Ridhima Pandey litigants will benefit from relying on the fundamental right recognised in M.K. Ranjitsinh. The Supreme Court will have to particularly consider the right to be protected against adverse effects of climate change, as the petitioners in the Ridhima Pandey appeal will likely be using this fundamental right to contend that the government must be held accountable for their inaction and be directed to formulate climate-centric policies.
5. NATIONAL COURTS MAY DRAW GUIDANCE FROM THE CLIMATE LITIGATION BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COURTS
Both in the past and more recently, the Indian Supreme Court has relied upon and derived guidance from the jurisprudence of international Courts, including advisory opinions [paras 74 to 76, Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI (2017, SC)].
Considering that the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are set to issue advisory opinions on States’ obligations relating to climate change, it is likely that the litigants in Ridhima Pandey may rely on these advisory opinions in their written or oral submissions if these opinions are issued before the conclusion of the case. The petitioner will likely also rely on the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s advisory opinion on climate obligations of States under UNCLOS, seeing as India is party to the UNCLOS and thus has climate change related obligations under the UNCLOS regime. Further, looking at past practice, it will also be open for the bench to rely on these advisory opinions to decide the obligations of the Indian government regarding national climate policies. While the advisory opinions are not binding on Indian Courts, they hold a guiding value in determining the outcome of the case, especially when the case requires an assessment of India’s international obligations. These advisory opinions will be the most authoritative interpretation of States’ climate change-related obligations, which would be binding on all States, including India.
6. CONCLUSION
Lin and Peel argue that since there is greater access to justice in India compared to other Asian jurisdictions, it will emerge as a frontrunner when it comes to adjudicating climate change issues. Current developments concerning the climate crisis pave a positive path for India’s climate change litigation landscape.
However, it has been argued that the recognition of the right to be protected against the adverse effects of climate change in M.K. Ranjitsinh opens a can of worms for future climate litigation in India. It allows for a horizontal application of human rights (fundamental rights in India) based on international climate change laws without there being a national legislation governing such a right. As the Ridhima Pandey appeal was filed before the decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh, it may not be a direct result of the Ranjitsinh judgement. However, it is likely that the litigants in Ridhima Pandey will plead for the enforcement of this newly established fundamental right, evidencing the beginning of the assertion of this “horizontal application”. Considering that climate change is a complex interdisciplinary issue often intersecting with other policy areas like energy, development and trade, it is “uncertain” how Indian Courts will deal with these complexities, especially without a comprehensive climate change law. This uncertainty and possible impetus in climate change litigation reinforces a need for consolidating the current fragmented regime of environmental laws in India and implementing a consolidated climate law.
Having said that, the Court’s approach in the Ridhima Pandey, as indicated from the recent Order shows that the Supreme Court acknowledges the complexity of the issue. Its recognition of the current ‘siloed’ approach and direction to implead eight Indian ministries evidences that the Court aims to take a comprehensive and cross-cutting approach to this issue. Considering this, it is possible that the Court will set a precedent that will pave the way for future climate litigation in India. A progress through disruption trajectory to prioritise climate policy would perhaps serve as an appropriate alternative to instigate action from the government.
At this stage, where Indian citizens are facing adverse effects of climate change, the Supreme Court is expected to both “speak green and act green”. The judiciary is required to take a robust stance to ensure that the goals under the Paris Agreement are truly adopted and implemented. Indian citizens have the legitimate expectation of being protected against climate change risks, which flows from their fundamental right to be protected against the adverse effects of climate change. As such, the Supreme Court, being the guardian of the Indian Constitution [para 16, NALSA v. Union of India (2014, SC)], bears the responsibility to adopt a more proactive approach as it has done in the past regarding environmental law claims, to fulfil this legitimate expectation, and to protect the fundamental rights of the Indian citizens [para 16, NALSA v. Union of India (2014, SC)]. It is the constitutional duty and mandate of the Court to ensure the enforcement of constitutional safeguards, which now include the “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change”.
Short Bio:
Gunjan Soni - Gunjan Soni is an India-qualified lawyer, a current LL.M. student at the National University of Singapore and the National Co-Lead of WYCJ’s Indian Front. https://www.linkedin.com/in/gunjan-soni/
Jui Dharwadkar - Jui Dharwadkar is a third-year B.A. LL.B. student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jui-dharwadkar-695441253/