Climate Rights Without a Climate Law: The Case for a Framework Statute in India

Introduction

Climate change is already affecting everyday life in India. Heatwaves are becoming more severe, monsoons are less predictable, coastal areas face flooding, and glaciers are melting. India has also promised to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. However, the country still does not have one dedicated law that brings its climate policies together. Instead, climate-related issues are dealt with through different environmental laws, government policies and court decisions.
Indian courts have helped protect people from environmental harm, but court judgments alone cannot provide a complete national climate plan. India needs a framework climate law that sets clear responsibilities, encourages transparency and holds the government accountable, while also recognising the country’s need for economic growth and development.

The Role of the Courts

The Supreme Court of India has played an important role in environmental protection. Since the 1980s, it has interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life, as including the right to a clean and healthy environment. The Court has also applied important environmental principles, including absolute liability, the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle.
In 2024, in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, a case involving the endangered Great Indian Bustard and overhead power lines, the Supreme Court recognised that people have a right to be free from the harmful effects of climate change. It connected this protection with the rights to life and equality under Articles 21 and 14. The Court also pointed out that India did not have a standalone climate change law. Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution further support environmental protection by directing the State to protect the environment and placing a duty on citizens to do the same.
These decisions are important because they show that climate change is not simply a political or policy issue. It can also affect basic rights. However, recognising a right is only the first step. People also need clear rules and institutions that make the right meaningful in practice.

Why Courts Cannot Do Everything

Courts can protect rights when a particular case comes before them, but they are not designed to manage every part of a national climate strategy. A long-term climate plan involves decisions about emission targets, public spending, energy policy, industry and employment. It also requires difficult choices about how the costs of change should be shared—for example, between workers who depend on coal and people who need affordable energy.
Court action usually begins after someone files a case. As a result, some communities may receive protection while others facing similar problems may not. Separate judgments may also address individual disputes without creating one consistent national plan. In addition, major economic and policy decisions should generally be made by elected institutions, which can explain their choices to the public and be held accountable.
Courts remain essential for protecting constitutional rights and reviewing unlawful government action. But they should not have to fill every gap left by the absence of legislation. A clear climate statute would give the government a planned and consistent way to act.

A Patchwork of Existing Laws

India already has laws that deal with parts of the climate problem. These include the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Energy Conservation Act, 2001, and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The 2022 amendment to the Energy Conservation Act also created a legal basis for a carbon market.
Even so, these laws do not create one complete system requiring the government to set a legally binding national emissions goal, publish regular progress reports and explain what it will do when progress falls behind. India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, including its Nationally Determined Contribution, are important, but they are not the same as a complete set of enforceable domestic duties.
International law is also placing greater emphasis on climate responsibility. The Paris Agreement requires countries to prepare, communicate and pursue successive climate contributions. In its 2025 advisory opinion on climate change, the International Court of Justice explained that States have obligations under international law and must act with due diligence. Domestic legislation can help turn these broad commitments into clear responsibilities, practical plans and public accountability.

Lessons from Other Countries

Other countries offer useful examples, although India should not simply copy another country’s system. The United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act, 2008, sets a long-term target, requires carbon budgets and provides for independent expert advice and reporting. This helps the government and Parliament assess whether the country is on track and makes it harder to ignore delays without explanation.
Courts have also played a major role elsewhere. In the Netherlands, the Supreme Court’s decision in Urgenda required the State to reduce emissions in line with its human rights responsibilities. In Germany, the Constitutional Court’s decision in Neubauer found that parts of the climate law placed an unfair burden on future generations by leaving too much of the work of reducing emissions for later. In Pakistan, the Lahore High Court’s decision in Leghari addressed delays in implementing national climate policy and led to the creation of a commission to monitor progress.
These examples show that courts can push governments to take climate duties seriously. They also show why clear legislation matters: without a proper framework, courts may end up directing governments to create the very plans and institutions that a climate law could have established from the beginning.

What Should an Indian Climate Law Include?

India needs a climate framework that reflects its own circumstances, including poverty reduction, energy access, employment and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. At least five features should be included.
First, the law should set a long-term climate goal, supported by medium-term targets and plans for important sectors. These targets should be reviewed at regular intervals so that the government can respond to new evidence and changing circumstances.
Second, an independent expert body should assess progress and publish its findings. Parliament and the public should be able to see whether government policies are working, rather than having to rely only on the government’s own statements.
Third, the law should treat adaptation and a fair transition as central priorities. India must reduce emissions, but it must also prepare for heatwaves, floods and other climate impacts. Farmers, fishing communities and workers in coal-dependent regions should not be left to bear the costs alone. Support, training and realistic employment options will be important as the economy changes.
Fourth, transparency and public participation should be required. People should have access to reliable emissions data, and communities likely to be affected by major decisions should have a meaningful opportunity to express their concerns.
Fifth, the law should provide ways to enforce its duties. If public authorities fail to meet legal requirements, there should be a clear process for review, including judicial review where appropriate.
Parliament has the constitutional authority to create such a framework. Article 253 allows it to make laws to implement international agreements, providing an additional basis for national climate legislation while leaving room for cooperation with State governments.

Balancing Climate Action and Development

A common concern is that a binding climate law could slow economic growth in a developing country where many people still need better jobs, housing, electricity and basic services. This concern deserves serious attention. Climate policy should not place unreasonable burdens on people who have contributed least to the problem or who have few resources to adapt.
However, delaying action also carries serious costs. Poorer communities are often more exposed to extreme heat, flooding and livelihood losses, and they usually have fewer resources to recover. A well-designed framework law does not have to impose inflexible limits overnight. It can focus on planning, public reporting and regular review, while allowing targets and measures to reflect the needs of different sectors.
Clear and predictable rules can also help businesses and investors plan for renewable energy and cleaner technologies. A fair climate law should therefore support development, not treat development and environmental protection as opposites. Its purpose should be to make climate action organised, practical and socially fair.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has made an important contribution by recognising that climate change can affect the constitutional rights to life and equality. But court decisions cannot replace a complete national plan. India’s existing laws address several environmental concerns, yet they do not provide one clear system for setting climate goals, checking progress and holding public authorities responsible.
Parliament should therefore introduce a framework climate law built around clear targets, independent assessment, public participation, adaptation, a fair transition and enforceable duties. Such a law would help India turn its climate commitments into practical domestic action without ignoring its development needs. If legislation does not fill the gap, courts will continue to be asked to address climate failures one case at a time. A considered national framework would be a more consistent and accountable way forward.