Court-led accountability, more than policy, shaping India’s climate actions

Litigation has emerged as a potent tool for climate action in India. The ongoing Ridhima Pandey case and the Supreme Court’s constitutional recognition of climate rights signal a shift from policy promises to binding obligations.

This transformation represents more than just a procedural change — it marks the emergence of courts as arbiters of climate accountability.

Also Read: How climate change, tourism, and human greed push Uttarkashi towards disaster

Fundamental right

When Ridhima Pandey, then nine years old, petitioned the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2017, she framed climate inaction as a violation of fundamental rights. Drawing upon principles like the public trust doctrine, intergenerational equity, and India’s own promises under the Paris Agreement on climate change, the petition sought concrete action.

Ridhima Pandey filed a petition urging the Indian government to take stronger action against climate change. It’s now before the Supreme Court after the NGT dismissed it in 2019.

Though dismissed by the tribunal on jurisdictional issues, the case found resonance at the Supreme Court, where more proactive engagement with climate issues has begun to take shape. In February 2025, the court issued orders making ministry coordination on climate policy subject to judicial oversight. Climate inaction has become not merely poor governance, but a constitutional violation.

This evolution reflects four decades of environmental litigation in India. From defending the Ganga to battling air pollution and industrial emissions, public interest cases have elevated environmental protection from a policy aspiration to a legal requirement.

Environmental jurisprudence

The Supreme Court’s decision in MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India crystallised this progression last year.

Recognising the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as part of the constitutional guarantees of life and equality, the apex court in the Ranjitsinh case ushered in a new era of environmental jurisprudence. It suggested that climate issues are not only ecological concerns but also touch upon justice and rights.

How it helps to have courts as climate watchdogs

Courts can now enforce climate accountability with international legal support

Rights-based rulings curb administrative discretion in policy

Government delays risk legal consequences for inaction

Judiciary can demand inter-ministerial coordination on climate issues

Climate-hit communities gain legal avenues for redress

Project clearances may require judicial climate assessments

The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in July 2025 could now amplify these developments at home. The world court has held that nations are legally bound to curb climate harm and regulate private actors. Major emitters must take appropriate measures for both mitigation and adaptation. States that cause climate harm must provide reparations.

Also Read: Floods flip Rajasthan’s arid climate; greening of deserts not good sign, say experts

International rulings add weight

This international ruling carries weight in Indian courts, which consistently draw on global legal standards to interpret constitutional rights. The meeting of global authority and domestic jurisprudence creates powerful leverage for climate litigation that previous generations of activists could not have imagined.

The implications are immediate. Courts can now compel governmental accountability with constitutional backing and international legal support. Administrative discretion in climate policy will increasingly be curtailed when judicial orders rest on rights-based reasoning. Delays and minimum compliance would become legally perilous strategies for government agencies accustomed to bureaucratic inertia.

For communities facing climate impacts — city dwellers facing pollution, forest-dependent populations confronting displacement, coastal communities battling erosion — this legal evolution offers tangible remedies. Courts can order interministerial cooperation and demand climate assessments in project approvals.

Perpetrator and victim

India occupies a complex position as both a major emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases and a climate victim. The intersection of international duties and constitutional rights cannot be ignored indefinitely.

Public awareness of environmental hazards has reached levels that make political inaction increasingly untenable. Heatwaves and floods demand response, not rhetoric.

Also Read: Climate change culprit behind cloudbursts, flash floods, landslides: Expert

Ridhima Pandey’s story illuminates something deeper than legal strategy. Youth voices like hers represent a generation that will bear climate change’s harshest impacts. Their legal activism extends beyond present grievances to future rights. This generational perspective transforms courts from backward-looking arbiters of past wrongs to forward-looking guardians of coming decades.

Legislative reform

Proactive judicial decisions will continue shaping government action. This judicial pressure may compel legislative reform — comprehensive climate law, emissions standards, and transparent decision-making processes.

The Supreme Court’s directive that eight ministries be impleaded as parties in the Pandey case signals that courts will no longer accept fragmented responses to coordinated threats.

For India, such developments offer both opportunity and challenge. The continuous expansion of Article 21 — the right to life — to encompass the right to a clean and healthy environment means the judiciary takes a serious view of the matter.

Also Read: Climate change impact: Is Darjeeling coffee set to take over Darjeeling tea?

The Supreme Court’s interventions in Ridhima Pandey and Ranjitsinh affirm this trajectory. Judicial orders could now increasingly direct the government to coordinate across ministries, integrate climate goals into statutory frameworks, and report back on implementation.

Judiciary alone is not enough

Yet the question persists: will judicial intervention disrupt entrenched interests that prioritise growth over sustainability? Courts operate within constitutional boundaries and democratic legitimacy constraints. They can catalyse action but cannot substitute for legislative reform, executive leadership, and inclusion of affected communities — especially those whose rights have been overlooked.

Climate litigation in India will intensify. Judges will likely favour petitioners more frequently. But courts cannot enforce policy or design implementation. Their role is as constitutional guardians and reference points. The courts do not design implementation; they police boundaries and principles.

Young activists understand this dynamic. They use courts not as final arbiters but as catalysts for broader social mobilisation. Legal victories provide platforms for political organising. Constitutional rights become tools for demanding concrete action. The Pandey case demonstrates how individual petitions can reshape institutional relationships and public discourse.

Multi-pronged approach

Yet, courts alone cannot engineer climate justice. Institutional reforms — such as comprehensive climate legislation, transparent enforcement, and inclusive public participation — remain indispensable. Judicial action may prod government ministries into greater coordination, illuminate failures, and order remedies. But enduring transformation will require legislative commitment and executive leadership.

As courts balance separation of powers and democratic accountability, they are increasingly attentive to both constitutional empathy and international expectations. Climate justice will be measured not only in court orders, but in the durability of the changes they make possible.

As India faces intensifying climate risks, proactive judicial engagement signals both hope and challenge. It offers a path for redress while reminding governments and businesses that climate obligations are no longer optional.

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}