Case Law Database
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India
| Date of Application: | Sat, 25 Mar 2017 |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision: | Tue, 15 Jan 2019 |
| Decision Making Body: | National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi |
| Law Applied: | National Green Tribunal Act, India Paris Agreement |
| Keywords: | National carbon budget, right to a healthy environment, right to life, public trust doctrine, rights of future generations |
| Full Case Details - Download Full Judgment (pdf) |
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India
187/2017 JG
At Issue: Adequacy of India's climate change mitigation efforts vis-a-vis Public Trust Doctrine and other legal obligations.
Summary: Ridhima Pandey, a nine-year-old from the Uttarakhand region, is the named plaintiff in a climate change case filed in March 2017 with the National Green Tribunal of India. Plaintiff’s petition argues that the Public Trust Doctrine, India’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, and India’s existing environmental laws and climate-related policies oblige greater action to mitigate climate change. It also argues that the term “environment,” as used in the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, necessarily encompasses the climate.
The case was brought pursuant to section 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, which authorizes claims that raise “a substantial question relating to the environment.” In addition to those legal provisions, the petition cites the principles of sustainable development, precaution, and intergenerational equity, as well as judicial decisions based on similar legal principles in the Netherlands (Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands), Pakistan, (Leghari v. Pakistan), and the U.S. (Juliana v. United States). Pandey argued that she, along with all children and future generations, had the right to a healthy environment under the principle of intergenerational equity. Pandey also argued that climate change affects children disproportionately. Children were more vulnerable to impacts like heat waves, displacement, diseases, and malnutrition. As climate was an inherent part of the environment, she asserted that safeguarding the environment and protecting forests was critical to addressing climate change.
The petition notes that India is the third-largest national emitter of greenhouse gases (behind China and the U.S.) and among those countries that are most susceptible to adverse climate change impacts. It identifies 1° degree Celsius or 350ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide as the critical pair of thresholds for India (and the world) to avoid exceeding for the sake of avoiding severe climatic changes—facts described in the petition as rooted in “[t]he best climate science.” To remedy the alleged injury to the present and future climate, the petition asks the court to order the national government to undertake a variety of measures, including but not limited to inclusion of climate change in the issues considered by environmental impact assessments, preparation of a national greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and preparation of a national carbon budget against which particular projects’ emissions impacts can be assessed.
On January 15, 2019, the National Green Tribunal dismissed the case, reasoning that the climate change is already covered in the process of impact assessments under the Environment Protection Act of 1986, and therefore, "There is no reason to presume that Paris Agreement and other international protocols are not reflected in the policies of the Government of India or are not taken into consideration in granting environment clearances."
The petitioner has appealed the decision of the NGT before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has appointed two amici curiae and directed the Union government to file a compilation of all relevant Rules and Regulations concerning Carbon Emissions. On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter and made the following key observations:
1. While considering that India has ratified and incorporated the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement nationally through various initiatives, court recognises that the enforceability and binding force of these initiatives must be examined.
2. Court also noted that a meticulous examination of the existing environmental statutes is necessitated “with a view to incorporating climate-centric mandates.”
3. Court also recognised synchronisation of the institutional framework under various ministries, who are currently “[appear] to be working in silos.” As such, it directed 8 Indian ministries to be impleaded as parties.
The next hearing date is March 28, 2025.
Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India - Climate Change Litigation (climatecasechart.com)
Summary provided courtesy of the Sabin Centre
Court documents:
Appeal (5 December 2024)
Related CRC articles
- 2. Right to non-discrimination (CRC Article 2)
- 6. Right to life, survival and development (CRC Article 6)
- 16. Right to privacy, family, home, communications and reputation (CRC Article 16)
- 17. Right to access to information (CRC Article 17)
- 22. Rights of migrant and refugee children (CRC Article 22)
- 24. Right to health, healthcare, and a healthy environment (CRC Article 24)
- 27. Right to an adequate standard of living (CRC Article 27)
- 28. Right to access education (CRC Article 28)
- 38. Rights of children affected by armed conflicts (CRC Article 38)
The petition:
II. The Applicant is invoking the principle of sustainable development and precautionary principle, as envisaged under Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as well as the inter-generational equity principle and the Public Trust Doctrine.
K. Because the right to life under Article 21 would necessarily include right to a healthy environment. Article 47 which provides that it shall be the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health is also relevant in this connection
10. Further, as per Article 15 of the Agreement, the State parties shall take measures to enhance public participation and public access to information as these are important tools to enhance the actions envisaged under the Agreement.
13. the following were found essential to India’s response to climate change... d) Over-riding priority of the right to development.
E. Displacement from rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and conflict related to food and water insecurity disrupts and destroys family and community structures, as well as access to education, health care, and adequate nutrition.
No reference to rights in the decision.
Involvement of children in hearings
- Written presentation
Only the written submissions of the applicant are publicly available.
Intergenerational rights
The petition:
Grounds par C. Because the Applicant as well as the entire class of children and future generations have the right to a healthy environment under the principle of intergenerational equity.
The decision:
No reference to rights in the decision.
Future generations
The complaint:
Par 2. It is submitted that the State and its machinery is a trustee of vital natural resources on which human survival and welfare depend, bound by a fiduciary duty under the Public Trust Doctrine to mitigate climate change so as to protect such resources for the benefit of current and future generations.
Grounds par C. Further it is to be noted that current and future generations of children will disproportionately experience the harms of climate change.
Quoting Juliana v USA “the right of future generations to a ‘balanced and healthful ecology’ is so basic that it ‘need not even be written in the Constitution for [it is] assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.”
The decision:
No reference to future generations in the decision.
Outcome of decision for the applicants
- Relief sought by applicants NOT granted
The application was dismissed.
Did outcome of decision develop the law
- No
Involvement of NGO/law firm in application
Age range of litigants
- 8-12
Number of children or youth involved
1