A Breath of Fresh Air: Indian Supreme Court Declares Protection from Climate Change a Fundamental Right

Parth Chhapolia

In an era when the climate crisis poses existential challenges, the Indian Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) signifies a pivotal constitutional development. For the first time, the Court recognized that the “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” is integral to the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for the right to equality and life. The case, initially concerning the protection of the endangered Great Indian Bustard expanded in scope to address India’s broader obligations under international environmental conventions and its constitutional duty to safeguard human life, health, and equality in the face of a rapidly changing climate.

In anchoring this right within the constitutional framework, the judgment built upon earlier precedents such as Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1994) and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000), where the Court linked environmental integrity directly with the right to life. However, this judgment goes further. It articulates a distinct right against climate degradation, especially when it disproportionately affects the poor, indigenous communities, and other vulnerable populations. Rising sea levels, food scarcity from failed crops, droughts, and pollution not only threaten health and livelihood but also constitute a denial of dignity and equality, violating both Articles 21 and 14.

Court’s analysis

The Court noted that while India lacks a unified climate change legislation, its statutory landscape, ranging from the Environment Protection Act  (1986) to the Energy Conservation Act (2001), reflects sustained legislative intent to combat environmental degradation. Furthermore, Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution were highlighted for imposing duties on the State and citizens respectively to protect the natural environment.

The Court’s reasoning drew deeply from international jurisprudence and treaties. It reaffirmed India’s obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), notably Article 3(1) of the UNFCCC which urges states to act “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities” to protect present and future generations. The Court also referenced the joint statement by five UN treaty bodies (2019) affirming that failure to mitigate foreseeable climate harm could amount to a violation of human rights obligations, as well as the contribution by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to COP 21 in Paris, which explicitly acknowledged the links between climate instability and human rights deprivations.

International recognition

This moment places India within a growing global movement toward recognizing environmental protection as a human right. Portugal was the first country to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in its Constitution in 1976. Since then, till 2021, over 155 countries have incorporated some form of this right through constitutional provisions, statutory law, or regional human rights treaties, affirming the international community’s consensus that the environment is foundational to human well-being. In recent years, this movement has been bolstered by the United Nations General Assembly’s 2022 resolution declaring access to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment a universal human right.

Internationally, India is not alone in recognizing environmental degradation as a rights violation. In State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (2015), the Dutch Supreme Court ordered emissions reductions to protect rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), notably Article 2 and 8. In the United States, in Held v. State (2024) the Montana Supreme Court ruled that youth plaintiffs have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, including a stable climate. It struck down a state provision that barred considering greenhouse gas emissions in reviews, applying strict scrutiny and affirming the plaintiffs’ standing.

The Indian judgment emphasized the disproportionate burden of climate change on women and marginalized communities. Drawing on UN Sustainable Development Goal 7 and reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, the Court acknowledged that lack of clean energy access exacerbates gender inequality and health risks—particularly in rural India where indoor air pollution remains a silent killer.

Ultimately, this judgment is not merely about environmental governance or species protection. It is a human rights decision, a recognition that clean air, sustainable development, and climate resilience are indivisible from human dignity. As the then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud observed, “Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised.”

In the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “Making peace with nature is the defining task of the 21st century.” Through this path breaking ruling, India joins a global chorus calling for urgent, rights-based climate action. Of course, discordant voices remain, with wealthier, oil-rich, countries rolling back their commitments to reaching climate goals.  The battle against climate change is, fundamentally, a fight for justice.

Parth Chhapolia is pursuing a BBA, LLB (Hons) degree at Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India.