The Ranjitsinh Judgment and the Right to Climate Justice: A Legal Turning Point in Environmental Governance

Just over a year ago, the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. on March 21, 2024 represented a monumental legal shift in recognizing climate justice as a fundamental right. The Court expanded the scope of fundamental rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life) by including the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. This set a crucial precedent in light of India’s environmental jurisprudence, aligning the nation with other global legal movements that involve understanding climate change as a matter of human rights. It laid the groundwork for greater governmental accountability, stronger climate policies, and more robust mechanisms for environmental justice.

While the case primarily dealt with the need to protect the Great Indian Bustard, an endangered bird species, it also made important observations regarding climate change adaptation, environmental protection, and human rights. It highlights the State's obligation to prevent environmental harm and ensure the well-being of all citizens, particularly those disproportionately affected by climate change such as women and children.

The judgment was, and continues to remain, particularly significant because of it arrival at a time when India is experiencing severe climate crises, from record-breaking heatwaves and unpredictable monsoons to rising sea levels and the ever- worsening urban air pollution crisis.

By explicitly linking climate change to fundamental constitutional rights, the Supreme Court positioned India at the forefront of climate justice litigation, along with other nations like Hawaii, Netherlands and Switzerland in recognizing environmental protection as a legally enforceable right that is available to all citizens. This ruling has the potential to reshape India’s climate governance, compelling the State to formulate sustainable solutions that balance economic growth along with environmental conservation, keeping both the present and future generations in mind.

A Step Toward Environmental Accountability

The Ranjitsinh judgment does not exist in isolation- it builds upon a legacy of judicial activism in India’s environmental jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court has previously recognized environmental protection as a key component of the right to life (under the ambit of Article 21) in cases such as MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) and Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), these rulings were primarily limited to addressing specific pollution-related concerns rather than linking it with broader environmental threats posed by climate change, which is a common sight today, across the globe.

In contrast, the Ranjitsinh judgment seems to take a step further and integrates climate change with fundamental constitutional rights, a move that has long been necessary given India’s vulnerability to extreme weather events and environmental degradation. The ruling states:

“Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realized. The right to health (which is a part of the right to life under Article 21) is impacted due to factors such as air pollution, shifts in vector-borne diseases, rising temperatures, droughts, shortages in food supplies due to crop failure, storms, and flooding.”

This acknowledgment of climate change as a direct threat to public health and livelihood strengthens the foundation for initiating legal action against government inaction or ineffective policies. The recognition of Article 14 violations, which address the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized groups, also solidifies the ruling as a tool for ensuring climate justice, especially for vulnerable populations within the nation.

The Challenge of Enforceability: How Will This Right Be Implemented?

While the recognition of the right to be free from climate change impacts as a fundamental right is a landmark step, it raises the question on how this can be practically enforced? Fundamental rights are enforceable against the State, meaning that citizens can challenge governmental inaction or insufficient climate policies under Article 32 before the Supreme Court or under Article 226 before High Courts.

However, the challenge lies in the absence of explicit legislative and policy frameworks that would translate this ruling into clear governmental obligations. Unlike right to education (Article 21A), which was implemented through the Right to Education Act, 2009, there is no comprehensive climate law that establishes actionable climate targets and assigns liability for inaction. An attempt to make this right enforceable could mean for the Parliament to pass a legislation that clearly defines climate obligations, emission reduction targets, and penalties for non-compliance, etc.

The implementation of this right could take multiple forms. First, citizens and/or interest groups could file Public Interest Litigations (PILs) under Articles 32 and 226, urging the courts to direct governments to take specific climate action measures. Courts may issue writs of mandamus, compelling authorities to implement stricter climate policies, as seen in environmental PILs like MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997). Second, courts may also order compensatory mechanisms for victims of climate crises, similar to how human rights violations result in the state providing monetary relief to the aggrieved parties. Third, the judiciary may invoke the Precautionary Principle, requiring the State to take proactive measures even in cases of scientific uncertainty.

A Global Perspective

Comparative legal precedents from the courts of Netherlands and Switzerland show that clear legal mandates lead to stronger climate action. The State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (2015) ruling compelled the Dutch government to legally commit to reducing carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement, to which India is also a signatory. Similarly, the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland (2024) ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the Swiss government had failed to protect vulnerable populations from climate change impacts, setting a powerful example of enforceable climate governance. It was the first climate change litigation in which an international court ruled that state inaction violates human rights. The Court stated that Switzerland failed to protect its citizens from climate change "in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner", and required the state to reassess and address its climate change goals, with these efforts to be overseen by government representatives from the Council of Europe. India too, could immensely benefit through similar legally binding climate commitments to ensure the Ranjitsinh ruling does not remain merely aspirational.

But a notable gap in the Ranjitsinh judgment seems to be its lack of explicit reference to corporate accountability. While the ruling does place the primary responsibility on the State, it does not address the equally prevalent  role of industries, fossil fuel corporations, and private enterprises in climate degradation. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re Maui Electric Company (2023) held corporations accountable for their role in climate harm under the Public Trust Doctrine. In this regard, India could also benefit by introducing corporate climate responsibility laws, ensuring that industries that significantly contribute to pollution and carbon emissions are legally bound to mitigate their environmental impact.

Conclusion: A Landmark Ruling with practical challenges

The Ranjitsinh judgment is an instrumental victory for climate justice in India, setting a precedent that acknowledges climate change as a direct threat to constitutional rights. However, legal recognition alone is not enough. For this ruling to catalyse real change, it must be followed by strict implementation measures, stronger environmental regulations, and legally binding climate targets.

If effectively enforced, the ruling has the potential to redefine India’s approach to climate governance, ensuring that clean air, environmental protection, and sustainability become enforceable rights rather than mere aspirational goals as seen on paper. Although the judgment acts as a powerful tool for climate litigation, its true success will depend on whether the State, corporations, and society leverage it to push for meaningful action.

India is now at a crucial crossroads. The Supreme Court has laid the legal foundation for climate justice—but it is up to lawmakers, activists, and the judiciary to turn this landmark decision into a reality that safeguards future generations from climate crises. 

[This post has been authored by Turya Raghav, a second-year law student at JGLS]