Climate Change Litigation In India Rising PIL Trends

Abstract

Climate change litigation has emerged as a pivotal tool globally to compel governmental and corporate action against the escalating climate crisis. In India, this phenomenon has taken a distinct and potent form, primarily channeled through the instrument of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the evolving landscape of climate change litigation in India, with a specific focus on the rising trends driven by PIL. It begins by tracing the jurisprudential roots of PIL and environmental jurisprudence in India, establishing the foundational principles such as the Public Trust Doctrine, Polluter Pays Principle, and the Precautionary Principle, which have been read into the Constitution's Article 21 (Right to Life). The article then delves into a detailed examination of key landmark cases—from the foundational rulings in the 1980s and 1990s to the contemporary, explicitly climate-centric petitions like M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2021) concerning the Great Indian Bustard and the recent M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) Supreme Court judgment affirming the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. It analyzes the strategic use of PIL to hold the state accountable for its climate inaction, to challenge high-emission projects, and to push for the robust implementation of environmental policies and laws like the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The article further explores the unique characteristics of Indian climate PIL, including the expansive locus standi, the judicial crafting of environmental principles, and the proactive role of the judiciary in issuing continuing mandamus. Finally, it critically assesses the challenges, including implementation gaps, the tension between development and ecology, and judicial overreach, while contemplating the future trajectory of this dynamic and crucial field of law. The central thesis is that PIL has become, and will continue to be, the primary judicial vehicle through which climate justice is sought and increasingly realized in the world's most populous democracy.

Introduction

The spectre of climate change looms large over the 21st century, presenting an existential threat to ecosystems, economies, and human civilization itself. Characterized by rising global temperatures, melting glaciers, extreme weather events, and sea-level rise, its impacts are profoundly felt in a geographically and socio-economically vulnerable country like India. In response to this complex, polycentric challenge, nations have employed a multi-pronged approach involving international agreements (like the Paris Agreement), national policies (like the National Action Plan on Climate Change), and legislative action. However, the pace of political and executive action has often been perceived as insufficient to meet the scale of the crisis.

This implementation and ambition gap has given rise to a powerful complementary force: climate change litigation. Across the world, citizens, activists, and non-governmental organizations are turning to the courts to hold governments and corporations accountable for their role in causing or failing to mitigate climate change. India is no exception to this global trend. However, the Indian narrative of climate litigation is uniquely shaped by its robust and innovative jurisprudence on environmental protection, which is inextricably linked with the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

PIL, a judicial innovation of the late 1970s and 1980s, transformed the Indian legal landscape by relaxing the traditional doctrine of locus standi. It allowed any public-spirited individual or organization to approach the higher judiciary for the enforcement of constitutional or legal rights of those unable to do so themselves. This mechanism found its most potent application in the field of environmental law. The Supreme Court of India, through a series of landmark judgments, elevated the protection of the environment to a fundamental right, reading it into Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

This article posits that climate change litigation in India is a natural and logical evolution of its established environmental PIL jurisprudence. The strategies, legal principles, and judicial remedies developed over decades for combating local environmental degradation—air and water pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity—are now being strategically deployed to address the global, yet locally manifest, problem of climate change. The trend is rising, moving from implicit climate considerations in environmental cases to explicit arguments centered on climate science, carbon budgets, and intergenerational equity.

This article will explore this rising trend in detail. It will begin by establishing the foundational pillars of India's environmental jurisprudence. It will then trace the journey from traditional environmental PIL to contemporary climate litigation, analyzing key cases that mark this transition. Subsequently, it will dissect the specific strategies and legal arguments employed in climate PILs, followed by a critical evaluation of their efficacy, challenges, and future potential. Through this comprehensive analysis, the article aims to demonstrate that PIL is not merely a legal tool but a vital social and democratic instrument in India's ongoing battle against climate change.

I. The Foundational Pillars: Environmental Jurisprudence and PIL in India

Before delving into climate-specific litigation, it is imperative to understand the robust legal and philosophical foundation upon which it is built. This foundation rests on two key elements: the constitutional sanctity of the right to a healthy environment and the judicial creation and elaboration of core environmental principles.

A. Article 21 and the Right to a Healthy Environment

The cornerstone of Indian environmental law is the expansive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The judiciary, in a remarkable display of judicial activism, has consistently held that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 is not merely a right to animal existence but encompasses the right to live with human dignity. This includes the right to a wholesome environment.

The seminal case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985), often referred to as the Dehradun Valley Quarrying Case, is one of the first instances where the Supreme Court directly linked environment to Article 21. The Court, acknowledging the ecological damage from unchecked limestone quarrying, ordered the closure of several mines, establishing that environmental protection is a paramount constitutional priority.

This principle was further solidified in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), where the Supreme Court explicitly stated, "Right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life." This judgment unequivocally made a pollution-free environment a fundamental right, justiciable under the Constitution.

B. The Trinity of Environmental Law Principles

The Indian Supreme Court did not stop at declaring a right; it also incorporated internationally recognized environmental principles into domestic law, giving them constitutional force.

» The Precautionary Principle: This principle mandates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The Court embraced this principle in the landmark case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), concerning pollution from tanneries. The Court held that the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are essential features of sustainable development and are part of the environmental law of the country.

» The Polluter Pays Principle: This principle establishes that the polluter is responsible for the cost of remedying the pollution and the damage caused. It is not merely a principle of compensation but also of prevention. In the Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) case, concerning chemical industrial pollution, the Supreme Court vigorously applied this principle, directing the offending industries to bear the full cost of remediating the damaged environment.

» The Public Trust Doctrine: This ancient doctrine, revitalized by the Indian judiciary, holds that certain natural resources like air, sea, waters, and forests are held by the State in trust for the benefit of the public. The State, as a trustee, has a fiduciary duty to protect these resources and cannot transfer them to private ownership if it compromises public access and benefit. The doctrine was eloquently expounded in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997), where the Court prevented the diversion of a river flow for a private motel, stating that the State cannot abdicate its role as a trustee of natural resources.

C. The Instrument of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

The vehicle that carried these principles forward was the PIL. Designed to provide access to justice for the marginalized and oppressed, PIL became the primary tool for environmental activists. Figures like M.C. Mehta used PIL to bring numerous environmental issues before the Supreme Court, leading to sweeping orders on air pollution in Delhi (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), groundwater protection, and industrial safety, among others. The judiciary, in turn, adopted a proactive, investigative role, often appointing expert committees (known as Amicus Curiae) to assist the court, and issuing detailed directives to the executive, a process known as "continuing mandamus."

This powerful combination—a constitutionally guaranteed right to a healthy environment, a set of robust jurisprudential principles, and an accessible legal instrument in the form of PIL—created a fertile ground for the seeds of climate change litigation to take root.

II. The Evolution from Environmental PIL to Climate Change Litigation

The transition from general environmental litigation to explicit climate change litigation has been gradual. Initially, climate concerns were embedded within broader environmental disputes. Cases focused on protecting forests (which act as carbon sinks), challenging coal-fired power plants (major sources of greenhouse gases), or promoting renewable energy, all had clear climate implications, even if they were not argued primarily on climate grounds.

A pivotal case in this evolution was M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1991) regarding the protection of the Taj Mahal from air pollution. While the immediate concern was the preservation of a heritage monument from acid rain caused by nearby industries, the Court's orders for industries to switch to cleaner fuels had a direct co-benefit of reducing carbon emissions. Similarly, the entire line of cases on vehicular pollution in Delhi, which led to the introduction of compressed natural gas (CNG) in public transport, while aimed at improving local air quality, also contributed to climate mitigation by reducing CO2 emissions.

This phase can be termed "implicit climate litigation," where climate benefits were a collateral advantage of rulings aimed at local environmental protection. However, the 21st century, particularly the last decade, has witnessed a decisive shift towards "explicit climate litigation," where petitioners directly invoke climate science, India's international commitments, and the constitutional imperative to combat climate change as the central plank of their arguments.

III. Landmark Cases in India's Explicit Climate Change Litigation

Several recent cases exemplify the rising trend of using PIL to directly address climate change. These cases demonstrate a growing sophistication in legal strategy and a judicial willingness to engage with the specifics of the climate crisis.

A. M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (The Great Indian Bustard Case)

This case is arguably the most significant climate litigation in India to date. Initially filed in 2019, the petition sought the protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), whose habitat in Gujarat and Rajasthan is threatened by overhead power transmission lines from the extensive solar and wind energy projects in the region. The birds, due to their poor frontal vision, frequently collide with these lines, leading to high mortality.

» The Conflict: The Supreme Court, in an interim order in April 2021, directed the government to convert overhead power lines to underground lines in the GIB's habitat. While ecologically sound for the bird, this order created a significant tension. The region is a hub for India's rapidly expanding renewable energy capacity, a cornerstone of its climate strategy under the Paris Agreement (where it committed to achieving 500 GW of non-fossil fuel energy capacity by 2030). The petitioners argued for the bird's right to survival under Article 21, while the power companies and the government argued that the undergrounding mandate was technically challenging, prohibitively expensive, and would severely hamper India's renewable energy and climate goals.

» The 2024 Judgment: A Constitutional Milestone: The case came before a three-judge bench in 2024. The judgment, delivered in March 2024, is a watershed moment. The Court, recognizing the dilemma, modified its earlier blanket order for undergrounding, setting up a committee of experts to find a balance between conservation and renewable energy development.

However, the most profound aspect of the judgment was its obiter dicta (observations). The Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the right to life (Article 21) and the right to equality (Article 14) include the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. The Court stated:

"Although not stated explicitly as a fundamental right, the right to a clean environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change are rights that can be traced to Article 21 (right to life) and Article 14 (right to equality)."

This explicit articulation is a monumental leap. It provides a direct constitutional hook for future climate litigation, moving beyond implicit arguments to a clear, justiciable right. The judgment also emphasized the importance of solar power for India's energy transition and the need to balance ecological concerns with developmental needs, showcasing the complex trade-offs inherent in climate governance.

B. Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. (The Climate Change Commission Case)

Filed in 2022, this PIL before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) represents a strategic shift towards demanding structural and policy-level accountability. The petition argued that the Government of India has a legal duty under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to take necessary actions to combat climate change. It highlighted that despite having a National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) since 2008, its implementation has been weak, non-transparent, and insufficient to meet India's climate goals.

The petitioners sought a mandamus from the NGT directing the central government to:

• Prepare a national climate change adaptation plan.

• Set up a National Climate Change Commission, an independent expert body to oversee and coordinate climate action.

• Conduct a rigorous climate vulnerability assessment.

• Create a time-bound, granular plan for achieving net-zero emissions by 2070.

While the NGT's final ruling is awaited, the case is significant for its focus on governance architecture. It moves beyond challenging a single project to questioning the entire system of climate governance, demanding transparency, expert involvement, and a science-based, legally mandated roadmap. This reflects a maturation of climate litigation strategy, mirroring global trends where cases like Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands successfully forced the government to enhance its climate ambition.

C. Other Notable Cases

» S. K. Sundararaman v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC): This case challenged the environmental clearance granted to a large coal-based power plant, arguing that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) failed to adequately account for the project's climate impacts, specifically its greenhouse gas emissions and its inconsistency with India's climate commitments.

» Aditya N. Prasad v. Union of India: A PIL sought directions to the government to revise its targets for solar power generation upwards, arguing that a more ambitious target was necessary to effectively combat climate change and fulfill constitutional obligations. Although the Supreme Court did not issue a mandamus on the target itself, it highlighted the government's efforts in promoting renewables, keeping the policy dialogue alive.

These cases, among others, illustrate a diverse and growing docket. Petitioners are using PIL to target both the demand side (pushing for more renewable energy) and the supply side (challenging fossil fuel projects), while also seeking to reform the overarching policy framework.

IV. Key Characteristics and Strategies of Climate PIL in India

The rising trend of climate PIL in India exhibits several distinct characteristics that differentiate it from climate litigation in other jurisdictions and make it a potent, albeit complex, tool.

» Constitutional Anchoring: The primary legal strategy is to anchor climate claims in the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, primarily Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). The recent Ranjitsinh judgment has solidified this approach, creating a direct justiciable right against climate inaction.

» Reliance on Domestic Environmental Law: Petitioners heavily rely on domestic statutes, especially the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the rules framed under it, like the EIA Notification. The argument is that the government's failure to adequately consider and mitigate climate impacts in its decision-making (e.g., granting clearances to high-emission projects) violates its statutory duties.

» Use of International Principles and Commitments: While Indian courts have traditionally been cautious in directly applying international law without domestic incorporation, they frequently use international principles (Precautionary, Polluter Pays) and India's international commitments (Paris Agreement) as interpretive tools. They read these into the constitutional and statutory framework to guide and bolster their reasoning.

» Focus on Procedural Justice and Access to Information: Many PILs focus on procedural failures, such as the lack of a comprehensive climate impact assessment, non-disclosure of climate risks in project clearances, or the failure to involve the public in climate decision-making. This leverages the provisions of the EIA process and the Right to Information Act, 2005.

» The Judiciary as a Proactive Manager: Indian courts in PILs often transcend their traditional adjudicatory role. They become active managers of the case, appointing expert committees, monitoring implementation of their orders through "continuing mandamus," and often crafting detailed remedial plans themselves. This is both a strength, ensuring follow-through, and a point of criticism for alleged judicial overreach.

» Strategic Framing for Judicial Sympathy: Successful climate PILs are often cleverly framed to align with existing judicial priorities. The Ranjitsinh case was framed as a biodiversity and species protection case, an area where the Court has a strong track record, which allowed the climate dimension to be introduced effectively.

V. Critical Challenges and Limitations

Despite its successes and potential, climate change PIL in India faces significant challenges and limitations.

» The Implementation Gap: Perhaps the most significant challenge is the gap between judicial pronouncements and on-the-ground implementation. Court orders, especially those requiring significant financial investment or systemic changes (like converting power lines or creating a national commission), often face delays, bureaucratic resistance, and lack of political will. The executive branch retains primary responsibility for implementation, and judicial monitoring can only go so far.

» The Development vs. Environment Dilemma: Indian courts frequently grapple with the tension between urgent developmental needs—energy access, poverty alleviation, job creation—and ecological and climate concerns. This is starkly evident in the Ranjitsinh case, where the Court had to balance the survival of a species against the nation's clean energy transition. There is no easy answer, and courts are often reluctant to be seen as obstructing "development."

» Scientific and Technical Complexity: Climate change involves complex, data-intensive scientific and economic questions. The judiciary, comprised of legal experts, may lack the technical capacity to fully evaluate claims about carbon budgets, climate models, or the comparative costs of mitigation technologies. This forces them to rely heavily on expert committees, whose composition and terms of reference can themselves become contested.

» Judicial Overreach and Separation of Powers: The proactive role of the judiciary in PILs has often been criticized as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Critics argue that by directing policy, setting up commissions, and micromanaging implementation, the courts encroach upon the domain of the executive and the legislature. Determining the nation's optimal energy mix or climate policy is, they argue, a political question, not a judicial one.

» Limited Focus on Adaptation: The majority of prominent climate PILs have focused on mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions). Litigation focused specifically on adaptation—holding the government accountable for protecting vulnerable communities from sea-level rise, extreme heat, floods, and droughts—is still in a nascent stage, despite India's high vulnerability to these impacts.

VI. The Future Trajectory and Conclusion

The trajectory of climate change litigation in India is unmistakably upward. The Ranjitsinh judgment of 2024 has provided a powerful new constitutional foundation, which will undoubtedly inspire a new wave of creative and ambitious petitions. The future of this field is likely to be characterized by several key developments.

First, litigation will become more granular and specific. We can expect more cases challenging individual fossil fuel projects—coal mines, oil and gas fields, and new coal-fired power plants—on the grounds that their climate impacts violate fundamental rights and are inconsistent with a net-zero future. The arguments will be more sophisticated, relying on detailed carbon budget analyses and project-level climate risk assessments.

Second, there will be a growing focus on corporate accountability. While most current PILs target the state, future litigation may increasingly seek to hold corporations directly liable for their contributions to climate change and for failing to disclose climate-related financial risks, drawing inspiration from global trends.

Third, adaptation litigation will gain prominence. As the impacts of climate change become more severe and visible, communities affected by coastal erosion, farmers ruined by unseasonal rains, and city dwellers suffering from extreme heatwaves may file PILs demanding that the government fulfill its duty to protect them, implement National and State Action Plans on Climate Change effectively, and build resilient infrastructure.

Fourth, the role of specialized tribunals like the National Green Tribunal (NGT) will be crucial. The NGT, with its specialized expertise and faster procedures, is an ideal forum for technically complex climate disputes, as seen in the Goa Foundation case.

In conclusion, Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a formidable and dynamic force in India's response to the climate crisis. It is the primary judicial vehicle through the principles of intergenerational equity, sustainable development, and climate justice are being operationalized. Rooted in a rich history of environmental jurisprudence, Indian climate PIL has evolved from addressing the collateral climate benefits of local environmental actions to explicitly demanding constitutional protection from the adverse effects of climate change.

The path is fraught with challenges—implementation hurdles, developmental pressures, and legitimate concerns about judicial boundaries. Yet, the rising tide of litigation reflects a growing public impatience with governmental inertia and a deep-seated belief in the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional values. In the face of a crisis that threatens the very fabric of life, the Indian judiciary, through the instrument of PIL, has stepped into the breach, affirming that the right to a climate-stable future is an indispensable part of the right to life itself. As India navigates the complex path of development and decarbonization, climate change PIL will remain a critical, contentious, and indispensable arena for defining the nation's ecological and constitutional destiny.

Here are some questions and answers on the topic:

1. How has the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution served as the foundational basis for climate change litigation in the country?

The expansive judicial interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been the absolute cornerstone for climate change litigation in India. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life is not merely the right to animal existence but encompasses the right to live with dignity, which inherently includes the right to a wholesome and healthy environment. This principle was established in early environmental cases like the Dehradun Quarrying Case and explicitly stated in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, which affirmed the right to pollution-free air and water. This jurisprudential evolution created a constitutional gateway for environmental grievances. Recently, in the landmark M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India judgment of 2024, the Court took a monumental leap by explicitly declaring that the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21. This declaration transforms climate change from a mere policy issue into a justiciable constitutional right, empowering citizens to approach the courts and demand that the state uphold its duty to protect them from climate threats, thereby providing the strongest possible legal foundation for climate-related Public Interest Litigations.

2. What is the significance of the M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India (2024) judgment in the evolution of India's climate jurisprudence?

The M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India judgment of 2024 represents a watershed moment in Indian climate jurisprudence for several profound reasons. Primarily, it is the first time the Supreme Court explicitly recognized a fundamental right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, intrinsically linking it to the existing rights to life and equality under Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution. This move elevates climate protection to a constitutional imperative, setting a powerful precedent for all future litigation. Furthermore, the judgment brilliantly encapsulates the central dilemma of modern environmental governance: the tension between ecological conservation and developmental goals, in this case, between protecting an endangered species and advancing India's renewable energy infrastructure. By acknowledging this conflict and establishing an expert committee to find a balanced solution, the Court demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the complex trade-offs involved in climate policy. The ruling, therefore, serves not only as a declaratory beacon for rights but also as a pragmatic model for resolving polycentric disputes, signaling to the government that its climate actions and policies will be subject to constitutional scrutiny.

3. How does the strategic use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) differ in climate cases compared to traditional environmental cases in India?

The strategic use of Public Interest Litigation in climate cases represents a significant evolution from its application in traditional environmental cases, reflecting a shift from localized remediation to systemic, policy-level challenges. Traditional environmental PILs, such as those addressing air or water pollution in a specific city or the destruction of a particular forest, typically sought direct and immediate judicial intervention to stop a localized harm, often resulting in orders to shut down industries or relocate activities. In contrast, contemporary climate PILs are strategically broader and more complex. They are increasingly used to challenge the very framework of governance, as seen in the Goa Foundation case which demands the creation of a National Climate Change Commission and a robust national adaptation plan. The arguments are no longer solely about visible pollution but are grounded in climate science, carbon budgets, and India's international commitments under agreements like the Paris Agreement. The strategy is to force transparency, accountability, and science-based planning at the highest levels of government. Moreover, climate PILs often navigate delicate balances, such as in the Ranjitsinh case, where the litigation had to carefully reconcile the conflict between biodiversity conservation and renewable energy goals, a nuance less common in traditional cases focused on a single environmental evil.

4. What are the principal challenges and limitations faced by climate change PILs in achieving their desired outcomes in India?

Despite their growing prominence and some notable successes, climate change PILs in India face several formidable challenges that can limit their effectiveness. The most significant hurdle is the implementation gap, where judicial orders, especially those requiring substantial financial investment or systemic administrative overhaul, often face delays, bureaucratic inertia, and a lack of sustained political will, rendering landmark judgments less impactful on the ground. Furthermore, courts frequently grapple with the fundamental tension between development and ecology, often being reluctant to issue orders that could be perceived as stifling economic growth, energy access, or poverty alleviation, which forces them into a cautious balancing act. Another critical limitation is the scientific and technical complexity of climate change, which places the judiciary in a position of dependency on expert committees whose findings can be contested, and whose formation can be influenced. This complexity also leads to concerns about judicial overreach, where critics argue that by directing policy formulation or energy planning, the courts encroach upon the domain of the executive and legislature, violating the separation of powers. Finally, there is a noticeable skew towards mitigation-focused litigation, with adaptation—holding the government accountable for protecting vulnerable communities from existing climate impacts—remaining a relatively under-litigated area, leaving a crucial gap in the legal framework for climate justice.

5. What is the potential future trajectory of climate change litigation in India, and what new areas might it encompass?

The future trajectory of climate change litigation in India is poised for significant expansion and diversification, moving beyond its current focus. Building on the constitutional foundation laid by the Ranjitsinh judgment, future litigation will likely become more granular, with an increase in cases directly challenging the approval of specific new fossil fuel projects, such as coal mines or gas plants, by arguing their climate impacts violate fundamental rights and are inconsistent with India's net-zero commitments. We can also anticipate a strategic shift towards corporate accountability, where petitioners may seek to hold major corporate polluters liable for their contributions to climate change or for failing to disclose climate-related financial risks to their investors, mirroring global trends. A major emerging frontier will be adaptation litigation, where communities impacted by sea-level rise, extreme heatwaves, or catastrophic floods will file PILs to compel the government to implement and fund its National Adaptation Plan, build resilient infrastructure, and provide rehabilitation, thus focusing on the state's duty to protect citizens from current and unavoidable climate harms. The role of specialized forums like the National Green Tribunal will become even more critical in handling these technically complex cases. In essence, climate PIL will evolve into a more sophisticated tool, not just for challenging government inaction, but for actively shaping the architecture of India's transition to a climate-resilient and low-carbon economy.

Disclaimer: The content shared in this blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It provides only a basic understanding of the subject and should not be considered as professional legal advice. For specific guidance or in-depth legal assistance, readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional.