Associate Professor of Law, Government Law College Ramanagar, Basavanapura, Karnataka
JournalRVIMJ
Volume / Issue1 / 3
Pages92–100
Published09 Oct 2024
Paper IDRVIMJ13O240014
Views / Downloads3 / 0
Article summary
Abstract
Climate change and environmental justice create complex legal issues which current
legal systems are not sufficiently tackling. This paper explores the interaction between
the current legal frameworks for climate action and the procedural and substantive
aspects of environmental justice, and finds that there are many structural gaps in the
protection of marginalised groups who are most affected by climate change. The research
identifies key gaps in environmental protection mechanisms based on Indian
constitutional jurisprudence, international legal instruments like the Paris Agreement
and comparative judicial precedents, and examines how distributive, procedural and
recognition justice dimension’s function or do not function in the existing legal regimes.
The jurisprudence in the Indian courts is very strong and places environmental
protection as a fundamental right under Article 21, but statutory implementation is
scattered in various regulatory fields with no framework for integrated climate
governance. International legal architecture is based on principle rather than
enforcement, and gives a lot of leeway to the nation-states and not much to the
marginalised communities in decision-making processes. The authors conclude that
the challenge of environmental justice requires stepping beyond technocratic
management to justice-oriented legal frameworks that involve intergenerational
accountability mechanisms, recognition of indigenous knowledge systems and
employment protection with the climate transition. These specific recommendations
include comprehensive Climate Act legislation, strengthening of participatory
mechanisms using Free Prior and Informed Consent procedures, development of sector
transition frameworks protecting affected workers, and intergenerational impact
assessment. The study concludes that, although law is essential in safeguarding
environmental rights, there is need to give a greater weight to the environmental and
social justice needs as opposed to the short-term economic interests.
Keywords
Environmental JusticeClimate Law and PolicyConstitutional
Environmental RightsIntergenerational EquityParticipatory Environmental
Governance.
Citation record
How to cite this article
Anitha M (2024). Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Contemporary Legal Challenges. Research Vidyapith International Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(3), 92–100. https://www.researchvidyapith.com/article/rvimj13o240015/climate-change-and-environmental-justice-contemporary-legal-challenges
Anitha M. “Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Contemporary Legal Challenges.” Research Vidyapith International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, 2024, pp. 92–100. https://www.researchvidyapith.com/article/rvimj13o240015/climate-change-and-environmental-justice-contemporary-legal-challenges
Anitha M. “Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Contemporary Legal Challenges.” Research Vidyapith International Multidisciplinary Journal 1, no. 3 (2024): 92–100. https://www.researchvidyapith.com/article/rvimj13o240015/climate-change-and-environmental-justice-contemporary-legal-challenges
Anitha M (2024) ‘Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Contemporary Legal Challenges’, Research Vidyapith International Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(3), pp. 92–100. Available at: https://www.researchvidyapith.com/article/rvimj13o240015/climate-change-and-environmental-justice-contemporary-legal-challenges.
Anitha M, “Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Contemporary Legal Challenges,” Research Vidyapith International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 92–100, 2024. https://www.researchvidyapith.com/article/rvimj13o240015/climate-change-and-environmental-justice-contemporary-legal-challenges.
Anitha M. Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Contemporary Legal Challenges. Research Vidyapith International Multidisciplinary Journal. 2024;1(3):92–100. https://www.researchvidyapith.com/article/rvimj13o240015/climate-change-and-environmental-justice-contemporary-legal-challenges.
Anitha M. Climate Change and Environmental Justice: Contemporary Legal Challenges. Research Vidyapith International Multidisciplinary Journal 2024, 1 (3), 92–100. https://www.researchvidyapith.com/article/rvimj13o240015/climate-change-and-environmental-justice-contemporary-legal-challenges.
Data sharing is not applicable as no datasets were generated or analysed.
Author Contributions
The author solely conceived, researched and wrote the manuscript.
AI-use Declaration
AI tools were used only for language editing. The author verified all content.
Editorial record
Publisher's Note
The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). Publication does not imply endorsement by the journal, editorial board or publisher. Responsibility for accuracy, originality and integrity remains with the author(s). Readers should independently evaluate and verify information before application or citation.
1. Kravitz, J. (2020). “Climate Justice: A Comparative Legal Analysis,” Harvard Environmental Law Review.
, 44(1), 89-124.
2. Shue, H. (1992). “The Unavoidability of Justice,” in Protection of the Environment and International Law ,
Oxford University Press, 373-397.
3. Indian Constitution, Articles 48A and 51A(g).
4. Anbumozhi, V., & Kulatunga, S. (2019). “Environmental Justice and Climate Adaptation in South Asia,”
Journal of Environmental Studies, 15(2), 156-181.
5. Bullard, R.D. (1990). Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, Westview Press.
6. Naidu, S.A. (2019). “Climate Impacts on Marginalised Communities in India,” Economic and Political
Weekly, 54(41), 45-53.
7. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature, Oxford University
Press.
8. Constitution of India, Article 48A.
9. Subramanium Balaji v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 366.
10. Constitution of India, Article 51A(g).
11. Subramanium Balaji v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 366; Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 to
encompass environmental protection as essential to dignified living.
12. Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 4 SCC 705; established procedural mechanisms enabling
environmental rights enforcement.
13. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212; articulated precautionary principle
requiring environmental caution absent complete certainty.
14. Environment Protection Act, 1986, Section 3.
15. Environment Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(a).
16. Environment Protection Act, 1986, Section 15; established absolute liability for environmental damage
from hazardous substances, representing significant tort law innovation.
17. Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of
India).
18. Desai, U. (2017). “Exclusion and Environmental Justice: Adivasi Communities in India’s EIA Process,”
Environmental Justice Review, 8(3), 201-227.
19. Paris Agreement on Climate Change, adopted December 2015, entered into force November 2016.
20. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2016). “India’s Updated Nationally Determined
Contribution,” Government of India
21. Rajamani, L. (2016). “The Paris Agreement and Differentiation,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 32(2),
298-312.
22. Paris Agreement, Article 7, establishing Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage
23. Standing Committee on Climate Finance. (2018). “Climate Finance Report,” UNFCCC Secretariat;
documented persistent shortfall in committed climate finance delivery
24. UNFCCC Framework Convention, Article 3(1); established principle of Common But Differentiated
Responsibilities acknowledging disparate historical emissions.
25. Hari Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine Delhi 1245; applied intergenerational equity
principles addressing deforestation.
26. Delhi High Court PIL Orders (2015-2023) addressing air quality in National Capital Region; imposed
construction bans and vehicular restrictions.
27. Arjun Lal Sharma v. Delhi University, (2013) 6 SCC 656; recognised environmental protection cannot be
divorced from livelihood concerns.
28. Panda, S.K. (2018). “Indigenous Knowledge and Environmental Governance in India,” Environmental Law
Quarterly, 12(4), 334-361
29. Forest Conservation Act, 1980
30. Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
31. Water Pollution Control Act, 1974
32. Air Quality Act, 1981
33. Kothari, A., & Pathak, N. (2014). “Community Participation in Environmental Decision-Making: Evidence
from India,” Journal of Environmental Governance, 19(1), 78-104
34. Stern, N. (2006). The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press;
discussed temporal discounting and intergenerational justice
35. Ministry of Environment and Forests. (2008). “National Action Plan on Climate Change,” Government of
India
36. UK Climate Change Act, 2008; EU Climate Law (Regulation 2021/1119).
37. Agrawal, A., & Yadama, G.N. (1997). “How Do Local Institutions Mediate Market and Population Pressures
on Resources?” Development and Change, 28(3), 435-465.
38. Ministry of Coal. (2019). “Annual Report,” Government of India; documented coal sector employment figures.
39. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
40. Constitution of India, Articles 244 and Schedules 5 and 6; provide limited self-governance authority to tribal
communities in designated areas.
41. Das, G. (2016). “Tribal Rights and Mining: Legal Protection Mechanisms in India,” Law and Development
Review, 9(2), 301-336.
42. Climate Change Act, 2008 (United Kingdom); established statutory targets and independent review
mechanism for climate action.
43. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, Articles 26 and 32; established FPIC principles
for development affecting indigenous lands.
44. International Labour Organization. (2017). “Guidelines for a Just Transition,” Geneva.
45. Arrow, K.J., & Fisher, A.C. (1974). “Environmental Preservation, Uncertainty, and Irreversibility,” Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 88(2), 312-319; addressed discount rate implications for intergenerational justice.
