This article is written by Shloka Shailesh Rasal.

“Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority” – Bill Gates

Introduction

The rudimentary notion of ‘Climate change’ pursuant to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refers to proportionate change in the climatic condition due to human activity or natural viability. However, the usage differs as per the definition prescribed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), wherein attribution of climate change is from direct or indirect human activity accruing cumulative effect on the composite global atmosphere. Albeit being cognizant of the fundamental framework on how the GHGs and carbon dioxide warm the planet since decades, climate change only transpired as a vibrant international agenda post Stockholm Conference of 1972. The thriving economy of India and steadily rising emissions have made India the third largest country to emit Greenhouse gases ensuing India to be one of the vivacious players of climate change. Thus, pursuant to India’s demography, topography and incongruent level of economic development, India is awfully vulnerable due to the impact of climate change endangering agriculture, natural resources, environment, ecology, economy, ecosystem, water availability, biodiversity and social well-being. 

In 2008, the Indian government launched the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), which adopted “co-benefits approach”— environment that integrates objectives of India’s development simultaneously tackling climate change meritoriously leading to the birth of national climate change policy in India. Many regulations also discuss various facets of global warming, causes and effects in particular, and include the potential hooks for climate lawsuits. But in India, there is no comprehensive climate change legislation. Over the past several decades, the Indian judiciary the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Supreme Court and the High Courts have played a pivotal role in India’s environmental governance. Public interest litigation has been embraced as a tool for enhancing innovation to the judicial proceedings.

In of Om Dutt Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the respondents challenged the construction of an enormous irrigation project on the ground of submergence of huge tracts of forest resulting to methane emission. However, NGT rejected the complaint by stating that sealing the project would violate public interest ensuing massive waste of public money. In Sukhdev Vihar Resident’s Welfare Association v. Union of India the applicants contended that the waste-to-energy plant situated in their residential area incinerated the unsegregated waste that resulted in emission of Greenhouse gases. However, NGT declared the project to be Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project which ultimately met the Precautionary principle. In Sudarsan Das v. State of West Bengal the core issue was that the Subarnarekha river was changing its course resulting in susceptible flooding every monsoon endangering the lives of villagers due to illegal san mining wherein ground water was permitted to seep into evacuation of 40 to 50 feet pumping away disposal. This case observed a vibrant violation of Public Trust Doctrine and Precautionary Principle.

India has witnessed 193 deaths in 2020 due to illegal mining. During last five years Gujrat has perceived 38,100 cases with a surge of 2.16% in filing of FIR on illegal mining whereas Maharashtra reports 712 cases in 2018 seizing 1,39,000 vehicles carrying illegal mining. Whilst analysing emission of GHG, India ranks 12th in the world with an overall high score rating (28.39 score) whereas in the Energy consumption Sector, India ranks 10th with an overall high rating (14.77 scores). Therefore, the current Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2021 placed India among top 10 countries that need to undertake substantial measures to mitigate climate change.

Therefore, in India stringent laws pertaining to Climate Change is the need of the hour. Hence, the author canvases the constitutional provisions that protect the environmental rights of the citizens. The paper pledges a debate by streaking the surge in climate change litigation worldwide along with its conceivable potentiality and future in India by comparing it with the United States of America. These prominent countries reliant on ethics of prominent democracy have magnificent potential to shape the world’s legal ideas. The study on this phenomenon will create an awareness in the society elucidating every person’s duty to mitigate individual consumption of GHGs until a stringent law on climate change is enforced in India. 

Judicial interpretation of climate change litigation

A considerable legislative scrimmage against Ecological pollution commenced in independent India with prohibitive provisions of public nuisance prescribed under The Indian Penal Code. Currently in India their lack of legislation safeguarding the environment against pollution by maintaining ecological balance. One of the extensive statues for environmental protection is the Environment (Protection) Act, 1968.  To Improvise and protect the environment is a Constitutional mandate. It is a pledge towards a world accustomed to welfare state principles. While under chapters of Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties, the Constitution of India defines various provisions for environmental conservation. Judicial activism has triggered the absence of a clear constitutional provision acknowledging the fundamental right to a safe and healthy climate.

• Article 14

If the Contractor and the Government recognize that the Petroleum Operations will pose an ecological impact within the Contract Area then, the Contractor must perform its operations pursuant to the conservation of natural resources and shall:

1. Implement standard modem oilfield and petroleum industry practices encompassing advanced practices, techniques and methods of operation to prevent catastrophic environmental damage.
2. If an adverse impact on Environment is unavoidable the Contractor must mitigate the damage that would lead to consequential effects on the citizens and property.
3. Ensure mediocre compensation for damage or injury caused to property or persons due to the petroleum operations.
4. A critical study on the environmental impact must be made available to the employee and Contractor or Subcontractors to endeavour awareness of the methods and measures to be adopted to protect the ecology. The contracts consented into between the parties must comply with the reasonable requirements of the Government and relevant laws from time to time.
5. Preparation and submission for a review by the Government Contingency plans pertaining to fires, accident oil spills, and emergencies is a condition precedent for any drilling activities to accomplish rapid and efficient emergency responses. In such events, the contractor must forthwith notify the Government and prudently conduct restoration as may be essential pursuant to the standard petroleum industry practices. 

If the Contractor does not comply with the above provisions of Article 14 or contravenes any relevant law, and such contravention or failure causes ecological damage, the contractor must compensate for the damage caused to the environment. If the Government thinks that the erection of installations by the contractor are imposing danger on the flora and fauna, endangering the residents, and cause pollution then if the Government deems the operation to be unacceptable require the Contractor to undertake necessary remedial measure to restore the environment within reasonable period or discontinue the Petroleum operations in whole or in part until the remedial measures have been undertaken by the Contractor. On the expiration of the contract the Contractor must demolish or remove the installation erected in the Contract area.

• M.C Mehta v Kamal Nath

In Himachal Pradesh, Span Motel owned by members of Shri Kamal Nath, diverted the course of River Beas to beautify the Motel along with encroaching upon some Forest land. The apex court ordered the Motel to hand over the forest land to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and imposed a fine of 10,00,000 as exemplary damages. The Apex court utilized Polluter Pays Principle and recognized Public Trust Doctrine for the first time.

• Residents of Asha Nagar V. State of Maharashtra

Small scale industries located in Nandanvan Industrial Estate at Asha Nagar, Mulund (West), Mumbai according to the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board caused industrial pollution by damaging the ecology. NGT ordered MSPCB to undertake necessary steps to recover compensation and monitor compliance of air and water quality norms by industries.

• Students Of Shah Badduruddin High school V. State Of Assam

Mr. Hussain Ahmed was carrying illegal mining activities for more almost two years without obtaining valid Environment clearance documents. Such activity caused dust pollution in the villages endangering the health of the villagers. States PCB was ordered to recover ecological damages which is still pending which picturises the State PCB as inefficient.

• Article 19(1)(G) and Article 21

All the citizens have a Fundamental right to carry out any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business within the geographical limit of India. Apart from the restriction conferred under Article 301, by Article 47, 302, 303, 304 and Article 19(6). While considering Article 19(1)(g) the aforesaid articles are read together not conferring Article 19(1)(g) an absolute right. The vital objective of imposing restrictions is that one cannot harm the ecology to carry out business or profession and such practice must be detrimental to the interests of the public. Article 21 states that “no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Article 21 manifests constitutional value is of supreme importance within a democratic society. Justice Iyer has demarcated Article 21 as ‘the procedural magna carta protective of life and liberty.’

• Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd.

On 23 March, 2013 enormous leak of So2 from the factories sulphuric acid plant affected residents of Thoothukudi causing 20 women of the neighbouring industries to get hospitalised. For years Vedanta CEO Pankaj Kumar appealed in NGT Delhi and Tamil Nadu. This agitated the public to get on the street to protect their environmental rights. However, on 28 March, 2018 the Madras High Court dismissed all the appeals and as per the Article 19(1)(g) passed the orders of TPCB and for the fifth time shut and sealed the plant due to the vital leak of S02.

Madras authorities laid emphasis on Article 19(6) and ordered to shut down the plant in 2013 and subsequently in 2018 on the grounds of violation of license conditions. This hearing was remarkable as it was different from any of the proceedings in Sterlite’ s history. The Madras Government and TNCB were blamed for their inefficiency in not delivering the verdict before 22 years. In the case of Kendra v. State of UP (Dehradun quarrying case), the Supreme court was of the opinion that the ecological pollution caused by the quarries has impacted the health and safety of people adversely, hence it is infringing Article 12. This was the first case where the right to environment was made a subject to right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Anything impairing or endangering the quality of life in contravention of law, a citizen can file a writ before the Supreme Court under Article 32.

• Article 48(A) and Article 51(A)(g)

The state is empowered to improvise and safeguard the environment along with safeguarding the forests and wildlife of India. The Parliament by 42nd Amendment, incorporated it in Article 51A to sensitise the citizens of India of their responsibility to improve and protect and the environment encompassing wildlife, lakes, forests. Therefore, Article 48(A) and Article 51(A)(g) are foundation stones of environmental jurisprudence. In Sher Singh v State of HP, the court held that citizens are granted fundamental rights to a wholesome, decent and clean environment. Article 48(a) obligates the States to improve and protect and the wildlife, forest and environment.

• Lt. Col. Sarvadaman Singh Oberoi Vs Union of India 

The court held that whenever the State utilizes natural resources ‘Public Trust Doctrine’ will prevail over all the Principles and fundamental rights. Therefore, the Court thought it prudent under Public Trust Doctrine, the State to act as a trustee of all the water bodies to safeguard for public utility.

• Suo- Moto vs Principal Sec. Dept. Of Animal Husbandry

The Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the state to undertake appropriate measures to safeguard not only the ecology but also the migratory birds (Kurja) that fly to and fro in the state of Rajasthan.

• Article 253

This article empowers the Parliament to enact any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for the purpose of implementation of any agreement, treaty or convention with any other country or to make decisions at international conferences, association or other body.

Probability and potentiality of: climate change litigation

Litigation over climate change has its origins in civil liability lawsuits as the Society is bemoaning the fact that human activities and emissions are contributing to global warming. Releasing these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere may have disastrous consequences on health, property and environment. It paves the way to potential legal action against governments or enterprises that indulge in commercial activities. When a lawsuit is filed, it brings with it a whole new set of legal issues for both plaintiffs and defendants. Litigation concerning climate change can stem from a variety of channels, such as:

1. course of action centred (nuisance or negligence) on the grounds of climate change as a contributing factor, resulting in litigation issues;
2. administrative lawsuit filed against a public body for any omission, action. ultra vires to legislative obligation, or other failure of authority’s to adequately control greenhouse gas emissions;
3. certain legal grounds of action arising via increased public awareness of climate change issues, such as alleged violations of advertising standards and regulations with in course of developing climate change claims, alleging failure of corporations, or their representatives or their officers to appropriately report climate changes and environmental that have a significant effect.

The first two alternatives are being prosecuted in India, but in very separate environmental ways but not as part of climate change lawsuits. In particular, a citizen of India has the following options for seeking remedy in the event of a breach of his or her environmental rights:

1. Civil suit can be filed against the polluter, (nuisance and negligence);
2. Writ petition to induce existing environmental regulations and reclaim clean-up damages from the polluter; or 
3. Redress under plethora of environmental statutes, such as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974, the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 etc;
4. In the case of injury caused by a hazardous industry disaster, compensation under the National Environment Tribunal Act of 1995 or the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.

In India Whenever it comes to preventing environmental emissions in the present predicament, action of nuisance and neglect are very common. However, none of them have been used solely to involve climate lawsuits so far. Nuisance can be classified as either private or public. If someone uses their land in a way that damages the property interests of others, this is known as a private nuisance. In theory, a corporation will be held liable under private nuisance if it utilises its land in a manner wherein it damages others’ rights over their property that result in global warming. Climate change, on the other hand, is a far broader problem that in no way relates with defendants’ use of their land rather entails much less direct “annoyance” with “neighbours.” As a result, private nuisance does not seem to be a viable defence in climate change litigation. In climate change events, public nuisance is a better solution.

Drawing influence via affluence: will the model work for us?

The number of cases concerning climate change has significantly risen over the past decade. Several lawsuits have been filed in global and subnational tribunals all over the country. This type of lawsuit has become increasingly common in the United States. Massachusetts v. EPA was one such lawsuit, and the United States Verdict on that has drastically altered government policy and reshaped the litigation environment. The Supreme Court’s majority ruled that there was a sufficient correlation between GHG emission from the US transportation sector and injury to Massachusetts induced by rising sea levels and ocean acidification to justify the state’s claim to representation. Upon this merits of Massachusetts’ contention that the EPA was obligated to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, the Supreme Court majority held that the EPA should only refuse to do so if it really determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or even if it provides a reasonable justification as to why it cannot or would not do so.”

The decision is reminiscent of a judgement policy centred on the precautionary principle, an environmental scriptural interpretation that is a central aspect of environmental legislation in many countries and the European Union, but not (explicitly) in the United States. The principle was therefore prominently featured in international legal frameworks such as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (in which it is stated as principle 15) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (where it is stated as one of the guiding principles that “Parties should take precautionary measures to mitigate, prevent, the effects of global warming and potential impact of climate change”). 

In Juliana et al. v. United States of America the youth claimants participating in the lawsuit against the US government are advancing public confidence charges once again, but this time they are accompanied by allegations that the defendants’ conduct violate the petitioners’ fundamental rights to due process to life, liberty, and land, as guaranteed by the US Constitution. The plaintiffs are demanding a judgement that their public trust rights and constitutional were violated, as well as an injunction prohibiting the defendants from violating those rights and compelling them to implement a strategy to minimise CO2 emissions.

The court held that a petition for a claim alleging that governmental conduct is explicitly or implicitly disrupting the climate system in a manner that would cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread property destruction, endanger human food supplies, and drastically alter the planet’s environment states violation of human rights. In Third Runway at Vienna Re International Airport case the rights regulations contended before Austria’s Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) comprised Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), which demands for a “high degree of environmental protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment” to be incorporated into EU policies and according to the Principles of sustainable development.

In determining upon runway application, the Court evaluated possible public interests (including accommodation of airlines, fostering economic development, and creating jobs) against the public interest in curbing negative consequences, such as ecological harm and a rise in greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Climate change is now unfolding in Austria, according to the Court, and it would have far-reaching consequences for humans, wildlife, plants, and the whole world. Finally, it was decided that the construction and implementation of a new runway at Vienna International Airport would be detrimental to the public interest in environmental security, including climate protection.

Uncultivated environmental jurisprudence: laws as they prevail

Environmental jurisprudence of India is indeed an ambiguous combination of reluctance to protect the natural environment and lack of environmental consciousness, excessive regulatory efforts and shoddy implementation mechanism, perpetual massive infringement of basic human rights and extreme protest by claimants and stakeholders. These legal diametrically opposed, democratic and socialist ideologies, paint a hazy image of Indian environmental law. Ever since the dawn of environmentalism on Indian soil more than two decades ago, the India judiciary had stood bystander to environmental desecration. It was only in the 1980s that it eventually took proactive measures influenced by innovative rulings passed by the Indian Courts. 

Locus Standi is necessary for the commencement of court proceedings. The development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India liberalised the locus standi, allowing any institution or individual negotiating in uberrima fidei to petition the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) for judicial remedy on the grounds of encroachment of environmental rights which broaden the spectrum of PIL to include environmental protection. The court has already incorporated a right to a healthy environment with nascent yet evolving international environmental principles such as the precautionary principle, the principle of sustainable growth, polluter pays principle, the principle of intergenerational justice, and the notion of the state as a trustee of all-natural capital. 

Further, it is well established that public nuisance emerges from unreasonable intervention with the public’s general right. As a result, every citizen has right to be heard for public nuisance. In India, public nuisance has previously contained challenges such as sewer cleaning issues, brick grinding processes, hazardous waste disposal, and factory effluent discharges. However, climate change is indeed a mystery. The description of public nuisance is found in Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “A individual is liable of a public nuisance if he or she commits any act or renders any unlawful omission that causes some common damage, or nuisance to the public or to the people in general who live or inhabit property in the neighbourhood, or which may inevitably cause injury, obstacle, hazard, or annoyance to persons who may have reason to use any public right.”

This, nevertheless, is less appealing since the penalty is just Rs. 200, making it unnecessary for a citizen to file a lawsuit with a magistrate under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grants an improved remedy wherein Magistrate can issue conditional warrants on the ground of nuisance. The decision of the Magistrate can be based upon police investigation or a public complaint. This section gives you an autonomous, fast, and simple way to dispose of a public nuisance. 

Furthermore, after reviewing some environmental laws, I believe there are some provisions that the plaintiff in climate change litigation might make effective use out of. For example, Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, an umbrella law designed to provide a mechanism for Central Government regulation of the action of different state and central authorities established under existing regulations, namely the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981.Environment has been defined as “water, air, including land, as well as the interrelationships that exist within as well as between water, air, and land and human beings, other living organisms, plants, microorganisms, and property” in Section 2 (“Any solid, fluid, or vaporised material present in such concentration as may be, or appear to be, injurious to the environment,”) according to Section 2(b) of the Act.

Environmental pollution is described as “the existence in the environment of any environmental pollutant” under Sec 2(c) ‘Any solid, fluid, or vaporised material present in such concentration as may be, or appear to be, injurious to the environment,’ according to Section 2(b) of the Act. ‘Environmental pollution’ is described as “the existence in the environment of any environmental pollutant” under Sec 2(c). The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981 is indeed the principal legislation that alleviates India’s air pollution epidemic.  

Furthermore, if the court examines the current pollution norms for different geographical locations set by the government under various environmental statutes, establishing a causal link between harm and industry emissions would have been much simpler.

Discussion and analysis

Founded on my analysis of Supreme Court, NGT, and High Court, judgments wherein parties’ to the suit addressed climate change concerns and circumstances wherein the acknowledgement of global warming and climate change as well as the international negotiating mechanisms are not merely coincidental, I have classified judgements, in the first category either the petitioner or the court has referred to the ecological impact due to government’s inability of regulating illegal activities- in Society for Protection of Climate and Biodiversity v. Union of India, notice issued with a pollution control approval precluding the construction sector that accounted 22% of India’s annual GHG emissions was found to be illegal by NGT. The exemption, according to the Tribunal, was in violation of India’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Rio Declaration. Deforestation’s environmental impacts in the light of unlawful tree felling of trees and rampant illegal construction.

In such cases the Tribunal mentioned carbon sink depletion, carbon dioxide pollution from forest degradation, and localised warming effects of small-scale deforestation in both cases. Second category encompasses where petitioners have approached the court to seek appropriate implementation of governmental policies. In, Gaurav Bansal v. UOI, the Tribunal did not explicitly decide on its authority over the enforcement of the NAPCC in its final order, but it later clarified that particular cases involving violations of the NAPCC, impact, or repercussions brought before it in the future. Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered states to draft their respective state and have them authorised by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) as soon as possible. The courts used environment terminology to justify conclusions reached for other purposes in the third category-two study. The Kerala High Court noted that the Kyoto Protocol “did remind the country to strive for policies and interventions to mitigate adverse effects on climate change and to encourage sustainable ways of agriculture in light of climate change circumstances,” while guiding the states to devise policy on the utilisation of agricultural land for mining operations. 

So far, Indian cases have yielded a few preliminary lessons. Climate litigation incorporates economic, moral, scientific, economic, along with other facets of the era. Lawyers are responsible for notifying their clients about how climate change (anthropogenic global warming) can affect their legal rights. In about the same time, we as individuals have our own obligations. We must be more cognizant of intergenerational justice and our current and future socioeconomic, and legal responsibilities, that may decide the possible winners and losers of a climate change lawsuit.

In this respect, my combination of the United States, Australia and India aims at providing an intriguing and contrasting social context. The United States, as a staunch defender of democracy, wants its courts to be consistent and reliable and conform to democracy and human rights. There is no doubt there is some scepticism about the extension of democratic values to environmental problems, especially climate litigation. There is indeed a lot of speculation about who can make decisions about climate change there. Could it be the court ‘s responsibility to determine who has certain rights and obligations? Should they delegate all decision-making authority to Congress?  Will citizens be permitted to sue the government if they conflict with its own actions or inaction via the Court of Law? 

India, on the other hand, remains silent on the subject, as I previously said the current movement in the United States might well be classified as a nascent type of environmentalism, tackling more nuanced and controversial environmental issues such as climate change for future generations. This is inevitable, given that nowhere is the triumph of environmentalism more clearly expressed in the legislation it has overturned, passed, or changed than in the United States and Australia. It’s been described a “post-materialistic movement” by political scientist Richard Inglehart. Whereas in India, unfair trade, poverty, and population development have a big impact on how people respond to environmental degradation. Climate change, as a relatively new phenomenon, has yet to be addressed in mainstream litigation in this country.

It is unavoidable that India’s environmental judicial advocacy has had a significant impact on environmental law, and it owes that to dynamic social movements. It may be because, despite the potential, the nuisance, neglect, or others have yet to include climate change in them. While interpreting regulatory requirements, Indian environmental judgments always refer to international environmental law, but judicial rationale in such cases is not necessarily valid, and the interaction can seem shallow at times. In the light of climate statements, courts refer to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Judiciary emphases on these frameworks, as in other jurisdictions, is not necessarily supported by clear judicial rationale explaining how India has breached/obliged to comply with international agreement. On 22nd April, 2021 Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted that India would need a “High-speed, large scale concrete action to combat climate change” and would partner with U.S for the same. It clearly elucidates that India is yet to establish green strategies to accomplish the objectives set in the Paris Agreement.

Conclusion and suggestions

Since Stockholm, India’s egotistical propaganda about urgent need for advancement has stayed consistent. None of us would contend desire for environmental jurisprudence was unreasonable thirty, or even just fifteen years ago. However, it is easy to pose one self-evaluation question now: did everything change in 37 years? India is one of the global economy’s hotspots in an age of free trade and expanding markets. India’s consumer society is quickly expanding, as is the country’s population, outpacing economic gains. Knowing one’s environmental rights is critical, particularly in a world where rapid human activity produces new and complicated ecological problems almost every day. Therefore, I suggest that the Government must establish a causal nexus between a country’s GHG emissions or deficiencies in adaptation strategies and particular impact of climate change that damage human rights.

Extraterritorially extending rights guarantees to actions that arise outside the state(s) where the consequences are more acute; then by using potential climate change effects the judiciary must establish cases of human rights abuses, which are usually identified after real harm has occurred. My suggestions have proved to be contradictory after examining Tamil Nadu Governments recent order delivered on 23rd April, 2021 on reopening of Sterlite’s plant amid oxygen shortage. I support my view by humbly stating that post shooting incident of the plant that led to 13 deaths the reopening of the plant will once again avenge the citizens leading them to protest on the streets once again amidst the pandemic. This has raised to a serious question to create law and order predicaments and thus, the plant shouldn’t reopen. I nowhere consent the Governments view because plant which polluted the oxygen per se should not be permitted to produce oxygen. Therefore, the States should now understand the importance of Public Interest and human rights prior to passing an order.

The objective of this study was to deliver a comprehensive synopsis of the potential of climate change litigation in India. While the approaches addressed are by no means exhaustive, they will serve as a starting point for further debate. The future sustainability of the country is entirely dependent on the general public’s advanced awareness and the development of fool proof risk management methodology. Both the parties must understand the relevance of scientific data in judicial schemes in the midst of the locus standi debate. Indeed, given the increasing value of research, the parties, prosecutors, and judges must create a more strictly delineated standing doctrine in order to establish public nuisance or negligence.

References

• Ronald G. Peresich, Climate Change Litigation, 45 Brief 28 (2015), https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tbrief45&id=234&div=46&collection=journals.
• Noriko Okubo, Climate Change Litigation:: A Global Tendency, in Climate Change: International Law and Global Governance 741–758 (Oliver C. Ruppel, Christian Roschmann, & Katharina Ruppel-Schlichting eds., 1 ed. 2013), https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv941w8s.28 (last visited Feb 20, 2021).
• Himanshu Kulkarni, Mihir Shah & P.S. Vijay Shankar, Shaping the contours of groundwater governance in India, 4 JOURNALS OF HYDROLOGY: REGIONAL STUDIES 172–192 (2015), https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214581814000469 (last visited Feb 23, 2021).
• Roda Verheyen & Cathrin Zengerling, International Climate Change Cases, in CLIMATE CHANGE: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE 759–804 (Oliver C. Ruppel, Christian Roschmann, & Katharina Ruppel-Schlichting eds., 1 ed. 2013), https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv941w8s.29 (last visited Feb 23, 2021).

• Lavanya Rajamani, Addressing Loss and Damage from Climate Change Impacts, 50 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 17–21 (2015), https://www.jstor.org/stable/24481965 (last visited Apr 24, 2021).
• Siri Gloppen & Asuncion Clair, Climate Change Lawfare, 79 SOCIAL RESEARCH: AN INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY 899–930 (2012).
• Climate change: international law and global governance, (Oliver Christian Ruppel et al. eds., 1. Edition ed. 2013).
• Jacqueline Peel, Issues in Climate Change Litigation (2012), https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2060696 (last visited Apr 24, 2021).

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.