years later, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment introduced
Articles 48A and 51A(g), imposing environmental duties on both the State and the citizen. The courts, always quick to evolve, embraced this. The Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. treated the right to a healthy environment as intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21 — a bold, almost visionary move when seen in retrospect.

Then came the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. While the agreements at Rio were not legally binding, the principles it articulated — sustainable development, precautionary action, the polluter pays — became the foundation stones of environmental jurisprudence across the globe. Indian courts were among the first to adopt them, not through treaty enforcement, but by embedding them into constitutional reasoning.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court held that the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are part of the law of the land. The Court did not hesitate to treat these international principles as binding under the umbrella of Article 21, despite the absence of specific domestic legislation. This willingness to blend constitutional rights with global norms is a hallmark of Indian judicial activism — some may say creativity — but it is also what has kept environmental law vibrant and responsive.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 brought climate change to the forefront of international diplomacy, and India committed itself to reducing emissions intensity, expanding renewable energy, and investing in climate resilience. Unlike Rio or Stockholm, Paris came at a time when India was also seeing an environmental awakening through public interest litigation. The judiciary was no longer just enforcing environmental standards; it was steering national policy.

In the post-Paris years, courts and tribunals such as the National Green Tribunal have invoked India’s international climate commitments to demand stricter compliance and policy coherence. Be it air pollution, thermal power emissions, or vehicular fuel transitions, the Paris Agreement has become a subtle undercurrent in judicial thinking. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and related air pollution cases, the judiciary has repeatedly pushed governments to act in alignment with India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

All this raises a pertinent question: should courts rely on international conventions that are not explicitly codified into domestic law? In India, the answer — judicially speaking — is a resounding yes. Courts have rightly taken the view that if international environmental norms are not contrary to domestic statutes and uphold constitutional values, especially the right to life, they can be enforced. This interpretive flexibility is not only pragmatic but necessary.

In a country of over a billion people, where ecological fragility meets economic aspiration every day, the judiciary has emerged as both a guardian and a negotiator. By integrating global norms into national law, it has ensured that India’s environmental destiny remains tied to international cooperation — without compromising sovereignty.

As the world prepares for newer climate challenges, India’s judiciary must continue to act as a bridge — between treaty halls and forested valleys, between diplomatic commitments and the lives of citizens. The green bench is no longer just a forum for redress; it is a moral forum — where international hope meets Indian constitutionalism.