ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

TOPIC: ENVIRONMENTAL Key Idea: “Nature has rights and must be

JUSTICE vs ECOLOGICAL protected for its own sake, not merely for
human welfare.”
JUSTICE
2. Historical Evolution
1. Meaning
Environmental Justice:
Environmental Justice (EJ)
 Emerged in the 1970s- 80s in the US
 Focuses on fair distribution of
during civil rights movements.
environmental benefits and
burdens among human In India:
communities.
 Rooted in Article 21 jurisprudence
 Seeks to ensure that no group, and social justice movements
especially marginalized (Narmada Bachao Andolan, Bhopal
communities suffers gas tragedy aftermath, anti-mining
disproportionate pollution, movements in Odisha & Jharkhand).
displacement, or environmental
harm. Ecological Justice:

 Human-centric: prioritizes health,  Philosophical roots in Deep Ecology

dignity, equity, and participation (Arne Naess, 1973)- intrinsic value
of people. of all life.

Key Idea: “No community should bear  2001: Ecuador & Bolivia (South
unfair environmental burdens because of America) adopted Rights of Nature
caste, race, class, or poverty.” in their Constitutions.

Ecological Justice (EcoJ)  2010: Universal Declaration of the

Rights of Mother Earth.
 Goes beyond humans.
 India: Began emerging strongly in
 Recognizes nature, species, 2010s–2020s through judicial
ecosystems, rivers, and habitats as expansion of rights of rivers,
having independent rights and forests, and wildlife.
intrinsic value.
3. Jurisprudence (Theoretical
 Seeks protection of ecological Foundation)
systems, even when no direct human
harm exists. Environmental Justice Jurisprudence

1. Distributive Justice
Fair distribution of environmental risks. 1. Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1989, Union
Carbide) - foundation for
2. Procedural Justice Environmental Justice discourse in
Marginalized and affected communities India.
must have fair, inclusive, and
2. Delhi Air Pollution Cases- GRAP
transparent opportunities to participate in
(2016–2024)
environmental decision-making processes.
Focus on right to clean air &
3. Restorative Justice vulnerable groups (construction
Compensation for environmental harm. workers, slum dwellers).

4. Recognition Justice Ecological Justice Cases

Acknowledgment of vulnerable groups 1. T.N. Godavarman v. Union of

(Adivasis, Dalits, MCD workers, slum India (Forest Case, 1995–ongoing)
dwellers). Expanded ecological protection of
Ecological Justice Jurisprudence forests.

1. Intrinsic Rights of Nature International:

Nature considered as a living being with 1. Ecuador Constitution Cases (e.g.,

legal personality. Vilcabamba River case, 2011)-
Nature’s rights enforced.
2. Intergenerational Equity (Weiss)
5. Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
Nature preserved for future generations.
Environmental Justice
3. Biocentric & Ecocentric
Approaches  Article 21 – Right to life = right to
clean environment.
Supreme Court (2021–2023) adopted
ecocentrism—humans are part of nature,  Article 14 – Non-discrimination
not masters over it. (basis for EJ).

4. Earth Jurisprudence (Thomas  Art. 48A – State duty to protect

Berry) environment.

Law should align with ecological limits.  Art. 51A(g) – Fundamental duty.

4. Key Case Laws (India + International) Legislations:

Environmental Justice Cases  EPA 1986

 Water Act 1974

  Air Act 1981  Social Impact Assessment:
Evaluates effects of land acquisition
 Forest Conservation Act 1980 on communities.
 Biological Diversity Act 2002
Ecological Justice
 NGT Act 2010 (ensures speedy  Rights of Nature Models: Legal
environmental justice) personhood given to rivers,
Ecological Justice ecosystems, animals.

 No explicit law, but derived from:  UN Ecosystem Restoration: Global

initiative to revive degraded habitats.
o Biodiversity Act 2002
 Community Conserved Areas:
o Wildlife Protection Act 1972 Local communities protect
biodiversity.
o Forest Rights Act 2006
7. Future Problems
o Wetlands Rules 2017
Environmental Justice
 Constitutional:
 Climate Inequality: Poor
o Ecocentric interpretation of
communities suffer highest climate
Articles 21, 48A, 51A(g).
impacts.
 International Soft Law:
 Urban Heat Islands: High
o Earth Charter 2000 temperatures disproportionately
affect slum areas.
o UN Harmony with Nature
Resolution  Displacement: Development
projects push vulnerable
6. Recent Mechanisms communities out.
Environmental Justice  Weak EIA: Reduced public
participation risks environmental
 GRAP: Stepwise action plan to
harm.
control Delhi-NCR air pollution.
 Environmental Casteism: Waste
 EIA Process: Ensures public
sites often placed near marginalised
participation in large projects.
groups.
 NGT Orders: Provide immediate
Ecological Justice
relief in environmental conflicts.

 CPCB Penalty Regime: Imposes

fines under polluter-pays principle.
  Human–Nature Conflict:  Strengthen Wildlife Corridors:
Development often harms eco- Protect animal movement routes.
sensitive zones.
 Green GDP: Include environmental
 Unclear Guardianship: Legal costs in national accounting.
personhood of nature lacks clear
accountability.  Large-Scale Rewilding: Restore
degraded landscapes and
 Overreliance on Courts: No formal biodiversity.
statutory basis for nature rights.
CONFERENCE OF PARTIES
 Biodiversity Loss: Species (COPS) AS GOVERNANCE
extinction increasing rapidly.
MECHANISMS
 Climate Change: Accelerates
Conference of the Parties (COP) is the
ecosystem collapse.
supreme decision-making body of a
8. Solutions & Recommendations multilateral environmental agreement
(MEA).
Environmental Justice Every treaty (e.g., UNFCCC, CBD,
UNCCD) has its own COP.
 Strengthen EIA: Ensure
transparency and community In Environmental Law, the COP:
involvement.
 reviews implementation
 Cumulative Impact Assessments:
Evaluate total ecological stress.  adopts decisions/guidelines

 Community Monitoring: Empower  negotiates new commitments

citizens to track pollution.
 monitors compliance
 Expand Environmental Courts:
 creates subsidiary bodies
Increase access to justice.
2. Legal Basis
 National EJ Policy: Frame
nationwide guidelines for fairness COPs are mandated under international
and equity. environmental treaties, e.g.:

Ecological Justice  UNFCCC (1992) → COP on

Climate Change
 Rights of Nature Act: Provide
statutory recognition to nature’s  Convention on Biological Diversity
rights. (CBD, 1992) → CBD COP
 Ecosystem Trusteeship: Appoint
guardians for natural entities.
  UN Convention to Combat f) Mobilize Finance
Desertification (UNCCD, 1994) →
UNCCD COP Through the Green Climate Fund (GCF),
Global Environment Facility (GEF),
They are creatures of treaty law, not of the Adaptation Fund.
UN General Assembly.
g) Facilitate Technology Transfer
3. Purpose / Functions of COPs
Promote low-carbon tech, biodiversity
a) Review Implementation conservation tools, early warning systems.

Check how countries are implementing h) Strengthen Adaptation Efforts

treaty obligations.
NAPA, NAP, adaptation fund decisions.
b) Adopt New Decisions & Rules
4. Types of COPs in Environmental Law
E.g., emission rules, biodiversity targets,
funding guidelines. a) UNFCCC COP (Climate Change)

Most famous; meets annually.

c) Negotiate Protocols & Amendments

Examples: Focus: mitigation, adaptation, finance,

carbon markets, NDCs.
 Kyoto Protocol (COP3)
b) CBD COP (Biodiversity)
 Paris Agreement (COP21)
Meets every 2 years.
d) Global Reporting & Transparency
Focus: Aichi Targets → Kunming–Montreal
Countries submit reports: Global Biodiversity Framework (2022).

 National Communications c) UNCCD COP (Desertification)

 NDCs Meets every 2 years.

 Inventories (GHG) Focus: land degradation neutrality, drought

resilience.
e) Create Subsidiary Bodies
5. Historical Evolution of COPs
Such as:
(UNFCCC-focused)
 SBI (Implementation)
COP1 (Berlin, 1995) – Berlin Mandate
 SBSTA (Scientific & Technological Recognized insufficiency of commitments.
Advice)
COP3 (Kyoto, 1997) – Kyoto Protocol
 IPCC cooperation (scientific inputs)
First legally binding emission reduction  Promotion of LiFE (Lifestyle for
targets for developed nations. Environment)

COP13 (Bali, 2007) – Bali Action Plan India’s commitments under COPs

Formal negotiation pathway for post-Kyoto  NDCs under the Paris Agreement
agreement.
 Net zero by 2070
COP21 (Paris, 2015) – Paris Agreement
 Forest carbon sink target
Most significant:
 500 GW non-fossil electricity by
 universal climate treaty 2030

 NDCs  Kunming–Montreal biodiversity

commitments
 temperature goals (1.5–2°C)
7. Importance of COPs in Environmental
COP24 (Katowice, 2018) – Rulebook Law
Detailed rules to implement Paris.
a) Global Governance Mechanism
COP28 (Dubai, 2023) Provide a formal legal process for
 First Global Stocktake environmental decision-making.

 Call to “transition away from fossil b) Address Transboundary Issues

fuels” Climate change, biodiversity loss,
6. COPs in Indian Environmental Law desertification—all are global.
Context c) Transparency & Accountability
India participates actively in COPs across Countries must report progress.
treaties.
d) Progressive Development of
India’s key positions Environmental Law
 CBDR-RC (Common but E.g., Paris Agreement → soft law + NDCs
differentiated responsibilities) → hardening over time.
 Climate justice
e) Enables International Cooperation
 Right to development Finance, technology, capacity building.
 Demand for climate finance &
8. Criticisms of COPs
technology transfer
 Slow progress
 Protection of Global South interests
  Non-binding decisions (often soft Why India’s judiciary became activist
law)
 Indian courts expanded Public
 Dependence on political will Interest Litigation (PIL) in 1970s–
80s due to social needs and lack of
 Developed vs developing nation access to justice.
conflicts
 PIL allows any person/NGO to
 Implementation gaps approach court on behalf of affected
 Negotiations dominated by powerful groups.
countries and lobby groups  Courts began issuing policy-shaping
judgments (e.g., prison reforms,
“CLIMATE CHANGE
women’s safety, environment).
LITIGATION: INDIAN
PERSPECTIVE”  Judicial activism strengthened after
the Emergency (1975–77) crisis.
A. INTRODUCTION
Environmental activism by courts
India is a key global climate actor because:
Courts declared:
 It has 20% of world population,
2.4% land, 7–8% species.  Right to healthy environment is
part of Art. 21 (Right to Life).
 650+ million people depend on
climate-sensitive sectors (agriculture,  Environment protection applies
forestry). against private and state actors.

 Temperatures projected to rise 2– Important Supreme Court environmental

4°C by 2050s. principles established

 Judiciary will play a major role in Principle / Case Key Holding

shaping India’s climate response.
Polluter Pays – Polluters must pay
 Indian courts have a history of filling Indian Council compensation + clean-
legal gaps when the legislature fails for Enviro-Legal up costs. Govt must
to act. Action (1996) strictly enforce laws.

Strategic climate litigation (Urgenda, Shell

case, etc.) has ripple effects across
countries, raising awareness and forcing Right to Clean environment is
policy change. wholesome part of Art. 21.
environment –
B. INDIAN CONTEXT: IMPETUS Subhash Kumar
THROUGH JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
(1991) Strong democratic institutions (Parliament,
courts, regulators) enable courts to push
No funds excuse – Govt can't cite lack of environmental protection.
BL Wadehra funds to avoid
(1996) environmental duties. II. ROLE OF THE NATIONAL GREEN
TRIBUNAL (NGT)

 Established under NGT Act, 2010

Precautionary State must prevent for fast, expert environmental
Principle – harm; burden on adjudication.
Vellore Citizens developer to prove no
(1996) harm.  Composed of judicial + technical
experts.

 Reduces procedural hurdles and uses

Sustainable Decision-makers must international environmental
development – consider ecological principles.
Ganesh Wood factors;
Products (1995) intergenerational  Jurisdiction limited to laws listed in
equity. Schedule I (Water Act, Air Act,
EPA 1986, etc.).

NGT challenges
Public Trust Natural resources
Doctrine – MC belong to the public;  Limited jurisdiction
Mehta v. Kamal state is trustee.
 Time limitations (6-month filing
Nath (1997)
window)

I. CONTEXTUALIZING THE INDIAN  Execution difficulties

JUDICIAL SYSTEM
But despite constraints, NGT
India’s judiciary acts creatively because of: expanded climate-related
jurisprudence.
 Strong Constitution
C. THE ROAD TO CLIMATE CHANGE
 Separation of Powers (Art. 50) LITIGATION
 Judicial review power (Art. 13) I. Use of International Environmental
Law in India
 Fundamental Rights protection
(Art. 32) India’s courts often use international
principles such as:
 Power to do “complete justice”
(Art. 142)  Polluter Pays
  Precautionary Principle  Even those indirectly affected can
file cases.
 Public Trust Doctrine
Samata v. Union of India (2013)
 Intergenerational Equity
 Associations working on
Modern example: Doctrine of Non- environment can file cases.
Regression (NGT)
 Locus standi widened.
Society for Protection of Environment &
Biodiversity v. Union of India (2016) However, recent trends show shrinking
access to NGT.
 Challenge: Govt notification
exempting large construction D. TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP
projects from EIA. BACK

 NGT held parts of the notification India shows both innovation and
invalid, stating: limitations in climate litigation.

o Some provisions violate I. Innovation in Climate Jurisprudence

Non-Regression
(environmental laws must not Absence of climate-specific law
go backwards).  India has no dedicated climate
 This principle is not in Indian law change law.
but applied through international  Existing laws cover components (air
norms. pollution, forests), not climate
holistically.
II. Expansion of Access to Environmental
Justice  NAPCC-National Action Plan on
NGT is a statutory body, so locus standi Climate Change (2008) and
rules are narrower, but NGT has expanded INDCs- Intended national
them. determined contribution (2015)
exist but not legally enforceable.
Samir Mehta v. Union of India (2016)
Case: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of
NGT held: India

 “Aggrieved person” must be Petition sought enforcement of NAPCC &

interpreted broadly. SAPCCs.

 Environment is society-centric, not NGT:

individual-centric.
 Did not decide if it had jurisdiction
to enforce NAPCC.
  Directed states to finalize SAPCCs.  Dismissed case.

 Created confusion on enforceability  Held that govt policies already

of climate policies. reflect Paris Agreement
commitments.
Case: Rohtang Pass Glacier Case
 No need for additional directions.
NGT used Air Act to address glacial
melting from vehicle emissions:  Case now appealed to the Supreme
Court.
 Identified pollutants: black carbon,
NOx, SPM. This contrasts with Juliana v. United States
& EU youth cases where courts allowed
 Banned heavy vehicles at glacier. more expansive arguments.
 Imposed fees based on polluter pays
E. THE FUTURE OF CLIMATE
principle.
LITIGATION IN INDIA
Case: Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire v. Global cases since Urgenda show trends:
Union of India (2018)
 Forcing governments to increase
 Court below used carbon footprint emission reduction efforts.
damages (~₹190 crore).
 Challenging inadequate national
 Supreme Court rejected carbon targets.
footprint metric—not a recognized
principle in Indian law yet.  Linking harm to major emitters.

 Left open possibility for future use  Forcing adaptation measures.

with scientific evidence.
 Increasing youth participation.
II. Youth-Led Climate Litigation
Paris Agreement – Article 12
Case: Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India
Litigation enhances:
(2017)

 Filed by 9-year-old girl.  Climate education

 Alleged govt failure to act on climate  Public awareness

change.  Public participation
 Criticized NAPCC for lacking  Access to information
targets and scientific basis.
Litigation in India aligns with these
 Sought stronger climate action. goals.
NGT Decision (2019)
Rise of Climate Law Discussions  disaster management

Scholars debate whether climate law should  environmental governance

be a separate legal field, distinct from
environmental law. It is how a country deals with climate
change through its own laws and
F. CONCLUSION government policies.

 Indian courts have built strong Core objective of domestic climate law
environmental rights through
activism. The core objective of domestic climate
law is to provide a national legal system
 Climate-specific jurisprudence is still that reduces emissions, enhances climate
developing. resilience, fulfils international obligations,
and ensures sustainable, just
 Courts recognize environmental
development.
rights but hesitate on climate-
specific claims (e.g., carbon Jurisprudence- how courts interact with
footprint damages- Total amount of domestic climate law
greenhouse gases).
 Courts use international law and
 The next decade will determine science (IPCC reports,
whether India establishes dedicated UNFCCC/Paris agreement) as
climate rights for future interpretive tools.
generations.
 Rights-based approaches: judges
 As the world’s third-largest CO₂ increasingly find links between
emitter (CO2 trap excess heat fundamental rights (life, health,
temperature), India’s climate housing) and state duties on climate.
litigation trajectory is globally
significant.  Public trust & polluter-pays: courts
deploy these doctrines to require
DOMESTIC CLIMATE CHANGE state action or corporate cleanup.
LAW & POLICY  Precautionary principle: used to
Domestic climate law and policy refers to require preventive measures even
the laws, regulations, plans, missions, and with uncertainty.
institutional frameworks created within a Evolving: courts are more willing to order
country to address: plans, strengthen review, or require
 climate change mitigation enforcement of legislative commitments.

 climate change adaptation Landmark/illustrative cases

 climate finance
India (examples relevant to domestic law  Project-level reforms: requiring
& jurisprudence) EIAs to include climate and scope-3
emissions.
 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union
of India (Supreme Court of India, CLIMATE JUSTICE AND
2024)- The Supreme Court held that EQUITY FRAMEWORKS
renewable energy expansion must
not harm biodiversity, especially 1. Distributive Justice in Climate Policy
the Great Indian Bustard. It
ordered undergrounding/mitigation
Distributive justice deals with how the costs
for power lines and stressed that
and benefits of climate change and
climate policy must balance climate
climate action are shared among countries,
mitigation (solar/wind power) with
communities, and social groups.
species protection. The case shows
how Indian courts shape domestic Key ideas:
climate governance in the absence
of a dedicated climate law.  Climate impacts fall unequally on
the poorest, who contributed the
 NGT / Supreme Court least.
environment cases (e.g., MC Mehta
series, Vellore Citizens): established  Policies must ensure fair distribution
right to a healthy environment under of:
Article 21, polluter-pays,
o Emission reduction burdens
precautionary principle, public trust-
all used in climate litigation. o Adaptation resources

Recent domestic mechanisms & policy o Compensation for loss &

tools (what countries are doing now) damage

 National Climate Laws / Climate o Access to technology and

Acts that set net-zero deadlines (e.g., finance
UK, some EU members). Net zero
deadline means the target year by  Reflects CBDR (Common but
which a country aims to balance its Differentiated Responsibilities) in
greenhouse gas emissions with international law.
removals
2. Procedural Rights in Climate Decision-
 Independent Climate Making
Commissions/Committees
(statutory bodies to advise, review, Ensuring people have the right to
and hold governments accountable).
participate, be informed and access
justice in climate-related decisions.
  Used in litigation to argue for
stronger mitigation and adaptation
duties.
Core elements: Applications:
 Right to information: public must  Courts (e.g., Juliana v. US, Leghari
know about climate risks, pollution, v. Pakistan) recognize duties toward
and policies. youth & unborn generations.
 Right to participation: meaningful  Domestic policies: carbon budgets,
consultation in climate policy, EIA, long-term climate targets,
land-use planning. conservation of forests and
 Right to remedies: access to ecosystems.
courts/tribunals when climate harms  International negotiations: emphasis
occur. on long-term low-emission
 Based on Aarhus Convention strategies and net-zero pathways.
principles.
4. Indigenous Peoples and Climate Justice
 Reduces injustice by giving affected Indigenous communities face
groups (women, indigenous, youth, disproportionate climate harms while
farmers, coastal populations) a voice. contributing least to emissions, and
 Courts increasingly uphold protectors of high-value ecosystems, hold
procedural fairness in climate cases unique rights and knowledge systems.
(e.g., EU & UK consultation
Key points:
challenges).
 Climate change affects their:
3. Intergenerational Equity Applications
o Lands and territories
Meaning:
Responsibility of the present generation to o Cultural practices
protect the environment and climate for
future generations. o Traditional livelihoods

 Principles include:
Key principles:

 Future generations have a moral and o Free, Prior, and Informed

legal claim over a stable climate. Consent (FPIC)

 Current actions cannot compromise o Land rights & resource

the ability of future generations to rights
meet their needs.
 o Protection of traditional displacement makes people
knowledge vulnerable, especially women,
children, and the poor.
 Indigenous-led climate resistance is
often against: Equity principles:

o Deforestation  Gender-responsive climate policy

(mitigation + adaptation + finance)-
o Mining Gender-responsive climate policy
o Pipelines means designing mitigation,
adaptation, and finance actions that
o Fossil fuel projects reduce gender inequality and ensure
women’s full participation and
 International recognition: UNDRIP,
protection in climate solutions.
Paris Agreement Preamble, Green
Climate Fund safeguards.  Involving women in:

 Indigenous knowledge is vital for o Climate planning

adaptation and biodiversity
conservation. o Disaster risk management

5. Women and Climate Change o Agriculture and energy

transitions
Meaning:
Women are disproportionately affected by  International frameworks:
climate change due to economic, social, and o UNFCCC Gender Action
cultural vulnerabilities, but are also key
Plan
actors in climate solutions.
o SDG 5 (Gender Equality) +
Key impacts: SDG 13 (Climate Action)
 Increased burden on water
6. How these frameworks integrate into
collection, food security, caregiving.
climate law
 Higher exposure during disasters  Climate justice ensures climate
(floods, heatwaves).
policy is fair, inclusive, and rights-
 Limited land rights restrict based.
adaptation practices.  Courts increasingly use rights of
 Climate-induced migration raises equality, life, dignity, and
risks of violence and exploitation- environmental protection to analyze
forces people to migrate due to climate harm.
floods, droughts, sea-level rise, and  Policies incorporate justice through:
loss of livelihoods. Such
 o Just Transition strategies are taken (e.g., industrial
projects, land acquisition).
o Social protection
programmes o Ensures transparency,
reduces conflict, incorporates
o Community participation local knowledge.
o Climate finance targeting o Seen in EIA processes, forest
vulnerable groups clearances, and
climate/public hearings.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
AND HUMAN RIGHTS 3. Right to Access Justice

Environmental justice connects o Ability to challenge

environmental protection with fairness, environmental harm before
equality, and human rights, ensuring that courts or tribunals.
no group especially marginalized
communities bears disproportionate o Includes PILs (India), NGT
environmental burdens. access, complaint
mechanisms under human
i. Procedural Environmental Rights rights bodies.

Meaning: International basis:

Rights that ensure people can participate
in, access, and challenge environmental  Aarhus Convention (Europe) –
decision-making. cornerstone of procedural
environmental rights.
Core elements:
 Rio Declaration (1992), Principle
1. Right to Access Information 10 – participation, information,
justice.
o People must receive timely,
accurate information about Significance:
pollution, land-use, climate Procedural rights protect democracy,
risks, hazardous industries. empower vulnerable groups, and prevent
environmental decision-making from
o Governments must disclose
becoming arbitrary.
EIA reports, emission data,
climate impacts. ii. Substantive Environmental Rights

2. Right to Public Participation Meaning:

Rights that guarantee a minimum standard
o Communities must be
of environmental quality, such as clean air,
consulted before decisions
safe water, healthy ecosystems, and a stable
climate.
Key features: poor, minority, or marginalized
communities.
 Protects people from pollution, toxic
exposure, environmental Origins:
degradation.
 Emerged strongly in the United
 Ensures positive state duties: States in the 1980s, when minority
monitoring, regulating industries, neighbourhoods faced toxic waste
preventing harm. sites and pollution (“Cancer Alley”).

 Often interpreted as part of the Right  Spread globally to struggle against

to Life, Health, and Dignity. displacement, deforestation, mining,
and industrial pollution.
Recognition:
Core demands:
 150+ countries protect substantive
environmental rights constitutionally  Fair distribution of environmental
or legally. benefits and burdens (“distributive
justice”).
 Courts use this right to regulate
industries, enforce clean-up, stop  Equal participation in environmental
hazardous projects. decisions (“procedural justice”).

Examples in practice:  Recognition of community identity,

culture, and rights (“recognition
 Banning harmful mining/industrial justice”).
projects near residential areas.
 Corporate accountability and anti-
 Government obligation to control pollution regulation.
air/water pollution.
Examples internationally:
 Climate cases arguing for the “right
to a stable climate system.”  Anti-pipeline Indigenous movements
(Standing Rock).
Outcome:
Strengthens accountability and gives people  Anti-coal and anti-deforestation
a legal tool to demand environmental struggles (Latin America, Africa,
protection. India).

iii. Environmental Justice Movements  Global climate justice movements

(Fridays for Future, Extinction
Meaning: Rebellion).
Grassroots movements fighting against
unequal environmental burdens placed on In India:

 Narmada Bachao Andolan

  Sterlite Copper protests  Gives legitimacy to environmental
claims worldwide.
 Anti-coal mining protests in Adivasi
areas  Helps courts interpret existing
constitutional rights (life, health,
 Environmental PIL movement dignity).
Impact:  Supports stronger domestic laws and
Environmental justice movements bring climate policies.
political pressure, expose inequality, and
shape new laws & policies.  Helps vulnerable groups demand
government action.
iv. Right to Healthy Environment: UN
Recognition and Implementation 4. Implementation mechanisms

1. UN Recognition Countries give effect through:

 In 2022, the UN General Assembly  Constitutional amendments (e.g.,

formally recognized the Right to a South Africa, Latin America).
Clean, Healthy and Sustainable
Environment as a universal human  National environmental/climate
right. laws.

 Based on decades of work by the UN  Stronger EIA and pollution control

Human Rights Council, Special rules.
Rapporteurs, and global advocacy.  Creation of green courts/tribunals
(e.g., NGT).
2. Meaning of the Right

It includes:  Human rights-based climate

litigation (Urgenda, Leghari, etc.).
 Clean air
5. Challenges
 Safe and sufficient water
 Right is not yet legally binding
 Healthy biodiversity and ecosystems globally (UNGA resolutions are
persuasive, not enforceable).
 Non-toxic living environments
 Implementation depends on domestic
 Resilient climate system laws and political will.
 Sustainable use of natural resources  Need for monitoring, compliance,
This is both an individual right and a state and remedies.
obligation.
PROTECTION OF SACRED
3. Why it matters NATURAL SITES &
 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' essential for maintaining cultural
RIGHTS identity.

1. Introduction 3. Basis of Indigenous Rights

 Sacred sites and Traditional Cultural  Indigenous rights are sui generis—
Properties (TCPs) are central to unique, based on traditions and
indigenous identity, culture, customary law.
spirituality and survival.  Sacred site rights fall under broader
 Extractive industries (mining, oil, human rights:
gas, timber) often threaten these o Culture
sites.
o Religion
 Modern legal systems increasingly
recognize rights to access, use, and o Property
protect sacred sites.
o Equality
 International law (especially
o Self-determination
UNDRIP) and domestic laws
require:  Principle: “Protect, Respect,
Remedy” guides state and corporate
o Consultation, and sometimes
obligations.
o Free, Prior and Informed
4. International Law Protecting Sacred
Consent (FPIC)
Sites
before any development
4.1 Binding Treaties
project affecting indigenous
lands.  ICCPR & ICESCR (Article 1: Self-
determination; Art 27: cultural and
2. Meaning of Sacred Sites and TCPs
religious rights)
 No single universal definition;
 Convention on Elimination of
based on cultural and spiritual
Racial Discrimination
meanings as defined by indigenous
communities.  UNESCO Intangible Cultural
Heritage Convention
 Sacred sites can be tangible or
intangible, including landscapes,  ILO Convention 169
mountains, forests, caves, springs,
and ceremonial areas. o Recognizes special spiritual
relationship between
 TCP: cultural resources tied to a indigenous people and land.
community’s living traditions,
 o Requires protection of It aims to balance:
territories and consultation
before resource exploitation.  Environmental protection

 Economic activities (ports, fishing,

4.2 UNDRIP (non-binding but
tourism)
authoritative)

Most comprehensive protection. Key  Rights of coastal communities

Articles:  Disaster and climate risk reduction
 Art 11 – protection of cultural sites Often implemented through Integrated
 Art 12 – access to sacred and Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).
religious sites 2. Objectives of CZM
 Art 24 – rights over traditional  Protect coastal ecosystems
medicines & health practices. (mangroves, coral reefs, dunes).
 Many more.  Regulate construction and industrial
o Awas Tingni v Nicaragua: activities in coastal areas.
Indigenous land and cultural  Reduce risks from cyclones,
rights require demarcation and tsunamis, erosion, sea-level rise.
protection.
 Ensure sustainable fisheries and
o European Convention: Indirect livelihood protection.
protection through culture +
religion rights.  Encourage climate-resilient
development.

 Promote conservation of biodiversity

and cultural sites.
COASTAL ZONE  Prevent pollution of coastal waters.
MANAGEMENT
3. History & Evolution of CZM
1. Meaning
Global evolution
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) refers
 1972 Stockholm Conference:
to the planning, regulation, and protection
introduced marine environmental
of coastal areas to ensure sustainable use of
protection.
coastal resources while reducing risks from
erosion, flooding, storms, sea-level rise, and  SDG 14: conserve and sustainably
unplanned development. use oceans and coastal resources.
Indian context CRZ II

 1981: Coastal regulation first Already developed urban coastal areas.

discussed under Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986.  Regulated construction permitted.

 1991: First Coastal Regulation Zone CRZ III

(CRZ) Notification. Rural and undeveloped areas.
4. Legal & Policy Frameworks  No construction within No
Development Zone (50–200m
Indian legal framework
depending on notification).
 Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 - parent legislation. CRZ IV

Water areas up to 12 nautical miles; includes

 CRZ Notifications (1991, 2011,
2018) - primary CZM rules. fishing & sea resource zones. (fishing are
permitted for local communities, but the
 Island Protection Zone (IPZ) discharge of untreated sewage and solid
Notifications for Andaman, Nicobar, waste is prohibited).
Lakshadweep.
CRZ 2018 major changes
 Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
 Reduced No Development Zone
 Disaster Management Act, 2005 (NDZ) in CRZ III from 200m to
(cyclone/coastal hazard 50m, enabling more development.
management).
6. Institutions Involved
 State Coastal Zone Management
Authorities (CZMAs) implement  MoEFCC- policy + approvals.
CRZ rules.  National Coastal Zone
5. Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Management Authority
(NCZMA)- oversight.
Categories (India)
 State CZM Authorities (SCZMA)-
CRZ I
implementation & monitoring.
Ecologically sensitive and critical areas:
 Expert Appraisal Committee
 Mangroves, coral reefs, turtle nesting (EAC)- project-level review.
grounds, sand dunes, marshes.
 Local bodies- ground monitoring.
 No development except essential
activities.  World Bank ICZM Project Units-
capacity-building.
7. Jurisprudence / Case Laws  Weak enforcement of CRZ rules.

Indian cases  Conflict between development and

conservation.
1. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
v Union of India (1996)  Fisherfolk displacement and
livelihood loss.
 Directed enforcement of CRZ; held
govt responsible for coastal  Tourism pressure and beach
degradation. pollution.

2. S. Jagannath v Union of India (Shrimp 10. Solutions & Recommendations

Aquaculture Case, 1997)
Policy & Governance
 Supreme Court banned harmful
shrimp farming in CRZ.  Strengthen CRZ enforcement
through independent coastal
 Recognized rights of fishermen & inspectors.
ecological importance of mangroves.
 Update Coastal Zone Management
 Landmark for linking livelihood Plans (CZMPs) regularly.
rights to coastal protection.
 Integrate climate risk mapping into
8. CZM and Climate Change planning.

Coasts are the most climate-vulnerable  Establish “no-build” zones in high-

zones (highly sensitive zone) due to: risk areas.

 Sea-level rise  Use Integrated Coastal Zone

Management (ICZM) approach.
 Cyclones & storm surges
Environmental Measures
 Salinisation of soil & water
 Mangrove conservation &
 Erosion expansion.
 Loss of livelihoods (fishing,  Coral reef protection.
tourism)
 Dune restoration.
9. Problems & Challenges in CZM
 Strict ban on coastal sand mining.
 Rapid and unplanned development
(resorts, ports, industries). Socio-economic Measures

 Coastal erosion due to sand mining  Fair compensation & rehabilitation

& construction. for displaced fishing communities.
  Promote eco-tourism rather than INDC = intention (submitted before
commercial tourism. Paris Agreement)

 Support small-scale fisheries and NDC = final commitment (submitted

local livelihoods. after entering Paris Agreement)

Legal Measures 2. Purpose of INDCs

 Strengthen penalties for CRZ  To show each country’s:

violations.
o Emission reduction pledges
 Transparent EIA processes with
o Adaptation plans
public hearings.
o Technology and finance
 Mandatory climate impact
needs
assessments for coastal projects.
 To create a bottom-up, country-
Technological Measures
driven system instead of top-down
 Early warning systems for cyclones. Kyoto targets.

 GIS-based coastal vulnerability 3. India’s INDC has three major targets

mapping. for 2030:

 Use nature-based solutions (“green  Reduce emissions intensity of GDP

infrastructure”). by 33–35% by 2030 (from 2005).

INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined  40% of power capacity from non-

Contributions) fossil sources by 2030.

(and transition to NDCs)  Create 2.5- 3 billion tonnes carbon

sink through forests.
1. Meaning
 Adaptation focus (agriculture,
It is a climate action plan that every country
disaster resilience, water).
submitted before signing the Paris
Agreement (2015), stating what it intends to GLOBAL STOCKTAKE (GST)
do to:
(Paris Agreement, Article 14)
 reduce greenhouse gas emissions
1. Meaning
 adapt to climate change
The Global Stocktake is a process under
 provide finance, technology, and the Paris Agreement that checks the
capacity-building (if applicable) world’s collective progress towards
fighting climate change every 5 years, like:
  How much progress the world has  Parties submit data (emissions, NDC
made progress).

 Whether we are on track with Paris  UN agencies, IPCC reports, civil

goals (1.5°C / 2°C) society inputs included.

 What more countries must do in their 2. Technical Assessment

next NDCs
 Detailed analysis of “where we are
It is the world’s climate “report card.” vs where we need to be”.

2. Key Functions  Focus on gaps in ambition, finance,

adaptation and equity.
GST evaluates global progress on:
3. Political Consideration (COP decision)
 Mitigation- Stopping climate change
from getting worse.  Outcomes are summarized in a high-
level decision.
 Adaptation- Protecting ourselves
from climate impacts.  Countries use it to enhance the next
NDC cycle.
 Climate finance
⭐ Key Findings of the 1st Global
 Technology development / transfer Stocktake (COP28, 2023, Dubai)
 Capacity building 1. Off-track on 1.5°C
 Equity and CBDR  World is not on track.
3. Timeline  Emissions must fall 43% by 2030
 GST happens every 5 years. and 60% by 2035 from 2019 levels.

 1st GST: 2021–2023 → concluded 2. Fossil Fuel Reduction

at COP28 (Dubai).  First-ever UN call to transition
 2nd GST: 2028 away from fossil fuels.

 3rd GST: 2033  Triple renewables by 2030.

 Each GST informs the next round  Double energy efficiency

of NDCs. improvements by 2030.

⭐ Process of the Global Stocktake 3. Adaptation Gap

The GST has three phases:  Adaptation finance gap 5–10 times
actual flows.
1. Information Collection & Preparation
  Need stronger early warning hydroelectric diversion of Lake
systems, resilient infrastructure. Lanoux waters. The tribunal held
that France had sovereignty to use
4. Finance and Equity waters as long as no harm was
 USD 100 billion finance target caused to Spain, and Spain had no
delayed. veto right. It established key
principles of international water law
 Need for scaled-up, predictable, cooperation, no significant harm,
concessional finance for developing and good-faith negotiation.
nations. 3. The Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Case
(ICJ 1997) involved a dispute
5. Loss and Damage
between Hungary and Slovakia over
 Operationalized Loss and Damage a joint hydroelectric project on the
Fund. Danube. The ICJ held that Hungary
was not justified in abandoning the
 First pledges announced, but still treaty and Slovakia was not justified
insufficient. in unilaterally diverting the river.
The treaty remained valid and both
6. Just Transition
States must cooperate, highlighting
 Emphasized need for equitable and key principles of sustainable
inclusive transition for workers and development, shared water
vulnerable communities. management, and no significant
harm.
4. In the Pulp Mills Case (ICJ 2010),
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS Argentina claimed Uruguay
unlawfully authorized pulp mills on
1. The Bering Sea Fur Seal the shared River Uruguay. The ICJ
Arbitration (1893) settled a dispute held that Uruguay breached
between the US and UK over sealing procedural duties (no prior
rights. The tribunal held that the notification/consultation) but did not
Bering Sea beyond territorial limits cause proven environmental harm.
is high seas, the US had no The case is famous for recognizing
exclusive jurisdiction, and the Environmental Impact Assessment
seizure of British ships was illegal. It (EIA) as a customary international
also introduced early international law obligation.
wildlife conservation rules, making 5. In Certain Activities (Costa Rica v.
it a landmark in environmental and Nicaragua, ICJ 2015), the Court
international law. held that Nicaragua violated Costa
2. The Lake Lanoux Arbitration Rica’s territorial sovereignty and
(1957) resolved a dispute between caused environmental damage by
France and Spain over France’s
 excavating channels and sending
personnel into Costa Rican territory.
Nicaragua was ordered to pay
compensation. Costa Rica also
breached procedural obligations by
not conducting an adequate EIA. The
case strengthened principles of
territorial integrity, EIA,
cooperation, and environmental
liability.
6. Urgenda Foundation v.
Netherlands (2015–2019) is a
landmark case where Dutch courts
held that insufficient climate action
violates the state’s duty of care and
human rights (Articles 2 and 8
ECHR). The courts ordered the
government to reduce emissions by
at least 25% by 2020. It established
climate inaction as a human rights
breach and sparked global climate
litigation.
7. In Friends of the Irish
Environment v. Government of
Ireland (2020), the Irish Supreme
Court quashed the 2017 National
Mitigation Plan, holding it unlawful
for lacking specific and effective
measures as required by the Climate
Action and Low Carbon
Development Act 2015. The Court
rejected a standalone constitutional
right to a healthy environment but
affirmed that climate policy must
meet clear statutory obligations.