Germany, the Constitutional Court struck down inadequate climate laws for violating the rights of future generations. Just last year, Montana became the first U.S. state where young plaintiffs successfully argued that weak climate policies violated their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.

Such cases reflect a powerful shift: climate change is no longer only a matter of policy—it is increasingly being treated as a question of rights, justice, and constitutional duty. Courts are becoming the arena where scientific evidence meets legal obligation.

India’s Legal Landscape

India is no stranger to environmental jurisprudence. From the MC Mehta cases to the recognition of the “right to a healthy environment” under Article 21, the judiciary has often stepped in as a guardian of ecological justice. Climate change, however, poses a new challenge—its effects are diffuse, long-term, and transnational, making liability harder to establish.

Yet signs of change are emerging. In 2022, the Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India acknowledged climate change as a matter of intergenerational equity, urging governments to frame robust policies. Earlier this year, the Court went further, explicitly recognising the right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change as part of the right to life. This places India in the company of progressive jurisdictions treating climate action not as charity but as a constitutional necessity.

Contemporary Pressures

The urgency is clear. India is facing record-breaking heatwaves, erratic monsoons, and devastating floods, most recently in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. These are not isolated weather events; they are the lived realities of climate change. Citizens, particularly vulnerable communities, are demanding accountability not only from the government but also from corporations whose activities exacerbate emissions.

The global push for corporate liability is equally relevant in India. As multinational corporations face lawsuits abroad for their carbon footprints, Indian courts too may soon be asked to determine whether large polluters can be held responsible for climate-related harms under tort law or the polluter-pays principle.

Challenges Before the Judiciary

However, climate litigation is not without pitfalls. Courts risk overstepping into the domain of policymaking, traditionally reserved for legislatures and executives. Scientific complexity also raises evidentiary hurdles—how do you link a flood in Assam directly to emissions by a particular company or policy? Moreover, balancing developmental needs with environmental obligations remains particularly sensitive for India, where millions still depend on coal and traditional industries for livelihood.

The Way Forward

Despite these challenges, climate litigation has the potential to be a vital instrument of accountability. It can nudge governments to honour international commitments like the Paris Agreement, compel corporations to disclose climate risks, and empower citizens—especially the youth—to demand a sustainable future.

For India, the moment is ripe to strengthen institutional frameworks. A specialised environmental court, armed with scientific expertise and clear jurisdiction over climate disputes, could reduce the burden on the judiciary while ensuring consistent rulings. Parliament, too, must consider updating environmental laws to directly address climate accountability, providing clearer pathways for litigation.

Conclusion

Climate change litigation is more than a legal trend—it is a democratic tool in the hands of citizens. As political debates falter and emissions rise, courts are increasingly being asked to be the conscience-keepers of climate justice. India, with its proud tradition of judicial activism, must embrace this frontier thoughtfully. The law cannot stop climate change on its own, but it can ensure that promises are kept, responsibilities are shared, and the future of coming generations is not bargained away in the name of short-term growth.

The climate crisis is already upon us. The question is whether our legal system will rise to meet it—or allow the opportunity for justice to slip through like sand in a rising tide.