Mahārāshtra

Meghālaya

Manipur

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Madhya Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh

Mizoram

Arunāchal Pradesh

Nāgāland

Assam

Odisha

Bihār

Punjab

Chhattīsgarh

Puducherry

Chandīgarh

Rājasthān

Dādra and Nagar Haveli and Damān and Diu

Sikkim

Delhi

Tamil Nādu

Tripura

Gujarāt

Telangāna

Himāchal Pradesh

Uttarākhand

Haryāna

Uttar Pradesh

Jhārkhand

West Bengal

Jammu and Kashmīr

Karnātaka

Kerala

Ladākh

Lakshadweep

India

India has committed to increase installed capacity of non-fossil fuel sources to 40% by 2030.

The PM-KUSUM scheme aims to ensure energy security for farmers across India by increasing the installed capacity of electric power from non-fossil fuel sources to 40% by 2030. This is part of India's Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). There are three main aspects. A. 10,000MW of Decentralized GRound Grid Connected Renewable Power Plants and each plant size up to 2MW. B. Install 17.5 lakh solar powered agriculture pumps and C. Solarisation of 10 Lakh Grid connected agriculture pumps.

Create more carbon sinks by creating more forest and tree cover by 2030. The creation of 2.5-3Bn T of carbon dioxide sinks.

Achieve 40% cumulative electric power installed from non-fossil fuel based sources by 2030

Reducing India's emissions intensity of GDP by 33-35% by 2030 from 2005 level.

The finance minister welcomes a programme for scaling up LED bulbs across households on a widespread level. This will reduce energy usage in India.

In India, sustainable solid waste management systems are to be expanded to every village throught he Swachh Bharat Mission.

In India's Interim Budget 2019-2020, the Finance Minister flagged ten points from the 'Vision for the Decade', which included having a pollution free India with green Mother Earth and Blue skies, improving water management and having a blue economy.

Target of production of 5 million tonnes of Green hydrogen by 2030 and the related development of renewable energy capacity.

Objectives of smart meters mandates by 2017, 2019 against a 2016 baseline

Installed capacity of 20,000 MW by the end of the 13th Five-Year Plan in 2022

To promote programmes for off-grid applications, reaching 1,000MW by 2017 and 2,000MW by 2022

To achieve 15m m2 solar thermal collector area by 2017 and 20m m2 by 2022

To deploy 20m solar lighting systems for rural areas by 2022

Phase Two of the National Solar Mission has a target of 9,000 MW grid-connected and 800MW off-grid solar power by 2017 by 2022

Mandatory percentage of energy from Waste-to-Energy plants by distribution licensees  by 2017 against a 2016 baseline

An indicative target of 20% blending of biofuels, both for bio-diesel and bio-ethanol by 2017

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

The case was instituted by environmentalist M.K. Ranjitsinh and others under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to seek urgent judicial intervention for the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, both of which are critically endangered.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in 2019 to seek protection for the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a species found primarily in Gujarat and Rajasthan. By an interim order in  2021, the Court restricted the installation of overhead transmission lines on the migration path. In 2022, however, several Ministries appealed the decision, and the Court in 2024 modified the 2021 decision to loosen the total prohibition on the transmission line installation.  (See case entry MK Ranjitsinh et al. v. Union of India et al. (Modification of April 2021 Judgment))
In doing so, the Court appointed an expert committee to suggest recommendations that strike a balance between conservation and development. 

The committee appointed in 2024 submitted reports for Rajasthan and Gujarat, identifying priority and non-priority areas where the states would implement in-situ and ex-situ conservation measures. Renewable Energy Generators, however, challenged the report on several grounds, including that some recommendations are not in line with India’s solar energy generation commitment and go beyond the committee's remit under the Court’s 2024 order. The Generators requested that the Expert Committee’s recommendations not be given effect.

The Court held that entities engaged in power generation and transmission in both priority and non-priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat must remember that they share the environment with the GIB. It reiterated the “species best interest” standard, placing the survival of the species as the top priority. Further, the Court held that the “polluter pays” principle mandates that those responsible should bear the cost of the species’ recovery. Accepting the committee’s report, the Court issued directions to Gujarat and Rajasthan for their implementation.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court published on Order on April 17, 2025, addressing the alarming rise in heatwaves and climate change, emphasizing the life-threatening impact on vulnerable populations. 

The court emphasized the failure of government authorities to implement the Heat Action Plan and other measures to mitigate heatwave effects.​ The court reiterated interim directions, including providing cooling spaces, shaded areas, water facilities, and advisories for outdoor workers. It urged the government to prioritize public welfare, implement the 2015 Prevention of Deaths Due to Heat and Cold Waves Bill, and ensure effective action plans. ​The court demanded immediate compliance from authorities, primarily based on the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. ​

In an effort to impede the proposed cutting down of 2057 trees in Dehradun in order to widen the road, the Petitioner filed a writ petition in the public interest. The petitioner claims that the respondents were determined to take down fully grown trees rather than remove encroachments, stalls, electric polls, transformers, tankers and vehicle parking that is not planned, hawkers and squatters, and the encroachment of walking spaces. Additionally, the petitioner requested that the respondents provide guidelines for any road widening project that would require the subsequent felling of trees. 
The petitioner’s stay application was dismissed by the Court, enabling the State to press forward with the road widening project. Nonetheless, the State was directed to abide by the conditions and directions set forth by the Court. The Court took into consideration the significance of sustainable development and striking a balance between development and environmental needs. Although it recognized the effects of tree-cutting, it concluded that the amount of forest cover in the area did not put the species of birds and insects at risk. The court additionally noted that the road's development and widening were urgently needed owing to the heavy traffic and would have possible advantages in terms of improved traffic flow and lower carbon emissions.

The present case is a writ Petition was filed to the Supreme Court of India, invoking its jurisdiction and to issue the necessary order to protect two endangered birds, the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican. 

This petition was in reference the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19th April, 2021, wherein the Supreme Court had ordered that a large part of the territory not be used for overhead transmission lines, gave instructions to convert to underground power lines within a year and appointed a committee to determine whether laying high voltage underground power lines would be feasible. The Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (‘MNRE’) requested a modification of the judgement dated 19th April, 2021, on the grounds that the implementation of the said judgment would cause adverse implications for the power sector and India’s International commitment for energy transition and fulfilment of promise under the Paris agreement signed by India in 2015 under the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change[UNFCC]. 

In the present case, the Apex Court had to decide two major issues: modification of the directions issued under the earlier judgment dated 19th April, 2019; and the correct balance between the preservation of Great Indian Bustard and India’s commitment to control climate change through just transition of shifting energy from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The Apex court reviewed the factors causing threats to Great Indian Bustards, the actions taken by the Government of India — specifically the programme ‘Habitat Improvement and Conservation breeding of Great Indian Bustard’ launched in 2016, and other measures. The Court also discussed the impacts of the changing climate and India’s commitments and efforts to control it. It observed that the promotion of renewable energy sources is crucial for promoting social equity by ensuring access to clean and affordable energy for all segments of society and thus fostering inclusive growth and development across the nation. 

The Court emphasised the duty on the part of the State under Article 48 A and fundamental duty of citizens under Article 51 A of the constitution of India as constitutional commitments to ensure protection of natural world and compassion for living creatures. Relating these duties to Articles 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution, the Court declared that the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change have their source in Article 21, which recognises the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 14, which indicates equality before law and equal protection of law. Thus, justifying the actions of the State, the court dealt with intersection between climate change and human rights as well as a novel issue of intricate interface between the conservation of an endangered species, such as the Great Indian Bustard and the imperative of protecting against the climate change.

The Supreme Court noted the need to balance the interests of conserving the GIB with India's commitment to reduce emissions and move away from fossil fuel-based energy resources. By an order dated 21 March 2024, the SC restricted the undergrounding requirement under the 2021 Order to only the priority GIB areas (approximately 13,163 square kilometers), subject to feasibility to be determined by an expanded seven-member expert committee. The Supreme Court also modified the 2021 Order by easing the restrictions imposed by the 2021 Order in the potential GIB areas.

Geography

India

Recent cases