U S vs India climate administrative litigation
🌎 United States: Climate Administrative Litigation
Climate litigation in the U.S. often involves agencies like the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), using or challenging administrative authority under statutes like the Clean Air Act (CAA).
1. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) 549 U.S. 497
Issue: Whether the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
Facts: Several states, led by Massachusetts, sued the EPA for failing to regulate CO₂ and other GHGs as pollutants.
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act, and the EPA has authority and responsibility to regulate them if they are found to endanger public health.
Impact:
Landmark case establishing the legal duty of the EPA to consider climate change.
Recognized standing of states to sue based on climate harm (e.g., rising sea levels).
Opened the door for federal regulation of GHGs.
2. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014) 573 U.S. 302
Issue: Whether the EPA could require permits for stationary sources of GHGs (e.g., power plants).
Ruling: The Supreme Court limited the EPA's ability to require permits for GHGs from small emitters, but upheld its authority to regulate large sources already subject to permitting.
Impact:
Mixed result: affirmed part of EPA’s authority but limited overreach.
Reinforced the idea that administrative agencies must stay within statutory bounds.
3. Juliana v. United States (2015–2020)
Issue: 21 young plaintiffs sued the U.S. government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by promoting fossil fuel development.
Argument: Sought recognition of a constitutional right to a stable climate system.
Outcome: The Ninth Circuit Court dismissed the case in 2020 for lack of standing, even while sympathizing with the plaintiffs' concerns.
Impact:
Although dismissed, the case sparked international dialogue on intergenerational equity and the government's role in climate change.
Highlighted the limits of administrative and constitutional law in achieving broad climate relief.
4. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) 597 U.S. ___
Issue: Challenged the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to implement generation-shifting measures (moving from coal to renewables) via the Clean Power Plan.
Ruling: Supreme Court invoked the Major Questions Doctrine, stating the EPA lacked clear congressional authorization to reshape the energy industry.
Impact:
Significant restriction on EPA’s regulatory power.
Signaled courts’ increasing skepticism of expansive administrative action on climate without explicit legislative backing.
5. State of California v. EPA (Ongoing)
Context: California has set stricter auto emissions standards. The EPA tried to revoke its waiver under the Clean Air Act.
Issue: Federalism vs. uniformity—can California set tougher GHG standards than federal government?
Status: Courts are considering the balance of federal and state authority under environmental statutes.
Impact: The outcome could shape how much state-level climate leadership is allowed in the U.S.
🇮🇳 India: Climate Administrative Litigation
India’s climate litigation often arises through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court or High Courts, emphasizing constitutional rights (Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g)) and administrative obligations under environmental laws like the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
1. MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987)
Issue: After a gas leak from a Delhi factory, the petitioner asked the Court to define governmental liability.
Ruling: Introduced the "absolute liability" principle for industries engaged in hazardous activities.
Relevance to Climate:
Set precedent for holding private and public actors liable for environmental harm.
Formed legal foundation for later climate and environmental accountability cases.
2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996–present)
Issue: Focused on forest conservation but evolved into a case with wide environmental scope.
Ruling: Supreme Court issued continuing mandamus orders, essentially managing forest and environmental governance.
Climate Connection:
Directed the establishment of Compensatory Afforestation Fund.
Court engaged in ongoing administrative oversight over environmental policy—a quasi-executive role.
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Issue: Industrial pollution caused damage to water, land, and health in Rajasthan.
Ruling: Supreme Court enforced the "Polluter Pays Principle".
Climate Connection:
This principle now underlies climate-related liability arguments.
Encouraged administrative enforcement of environmental norms.
4. Leelavathi v. State of Karnataka (2018, Karnataka HC)
Issue: Illegal tree cutting and urban planning without environmental clearance.
Ruling: High Court emphasized the state's constitutional duty under Article 48A to protect the environment.
Climate Implications:
Judiciary using constitutional environmental duties to direct administrative policy.
Promotes integration of climate adaptation in urban planning.
5. Himanshu Shekhar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020)
Issue: PIL filed on inadequate climate resilience planning in Himalayan regions vulnerable to landslides and glacial melts.
Ruling: High Court directed the state to prepare climate adaptation plans, and improve disaster resilience.
Impact:
Court pushed administrative action based on climate science.
Legal recognition of climate vulnerability as an administrative responsibility.
6. Ridhima Pandey v. Union of India (2017) – NGT
Issue: A 9-year-old girl filed a petition demanding stronger climate action by the government.
Ruling: NGT dismissed the petition stating India was already complying with international commitments.
Impact:
Showed the jurisdictional limits of tribunals.
Sparked debate on whether existing administrative action was enough.
Echoes the Juliana case in the U.S.—intergenerational justice theme.
🔍 Key Comparisons
| Factor | United States | India |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Clean Air Act, Constitutional standing (limited), APA | Constitution (Art. 21, 48A), Environment Protection Act |
| Judicial Approach | Tends to limit overreach of agencies; emphasizes statutory clarity | Proactive; courts often direct policy or fill legislative gaps |
| Key Agencies | EPA, DOE | MoEFCC, State Pollution Boards |
| Youth Litigation | Juliana v. US – dismissed | Ridhima Pandey – dismissed |
| Federalism | States (like California) lead climate actions | Union has stronger environmental control, but courts push state action |
✅ Conclusion
While the U.S. system emphasizes statutory interpretation and administrative boundaries, Indian courts have been more activist, directly ordering administrative bodies to act on climate issues. Both systems face challenges in translating broad climate goals into enforceable policies, but through different judicial philosophies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments