FILLING THE GAP IN THE REPORT FOR GREEN v. GREEN Litigation

Author: Saksham Misra | Assistant Professor Law at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun (India) | PhD Scholar for Just Transition at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (India)| Contact : saksham.misra@ddn.upes.ac.in; and Chhaya Bhardwaj

The Global Trends in Climate Litigation Report 2026 (the Report) was published. One of the focused categories in the report is GREEN versus GREEN cases (GvG). In the report, the leading climate litigation in India MK Ranjitsinh et al. v. Union of India et al., is characterised as a GvG case. If we examine the facts of the case, it becomes evident that it concerns the adverse impacts of a solar power project and its associated overhead transmission lines on biodiversity and the environment. In the Indian context, this suggests that where a renewable energy project or another climate-related measure comes into conflict with environmental protection or natural resources, and that conflict results in litigation, such disputes may be characterised as climate litigation under the GvG category. However, owing to its technical limitations, the report does not adequately capture the wide range of GvG cases currently before Indian courts. This article addresses that gap by highlighting one such cases. We follow the methodological reference for the preparation of the Report, and discuss cases from the Constitutional Court of India – Rajasthan High Court.

In a recent decision, Shri Jambeshwar Paryavaran and Jeev Raksha Sanstha v. State of Rajasthan & Others 2025, a public interest litigation concerning the large-scale felling of Khejri trees for the development of a solar energy project, the Rajasthan High Court directed that no further cutting of Khejri trees should take place without obtaining the requisite statutory approvals. The litigation arose from allegations that the activities undertaken by the Solar Energy Corporations (SECs) had resulted in extensive tree felling, posing a significant threat to the region’s ecological integrity. The Khejri tree, which holds considerable ecological, cultural, and economic significance in the arid landscapes of Rajasthan, is widely recognised for its role in maintaining biodiversity, preventing desertification, and supporting local livelihoods.

The case illustrates that renewable energy projects, notwithstanding their contribution to climate change mitigation, may themselves become sources of environmental harm when implemented without adequate safeguards for biodiversity and natural resources. The environmental conflict in this instance did not arise from opposition to renewable energy as such, but from the ecological consequences of the manner in which the project was executed. Consequently, the litigation centred on reconciling the objectives of renewable energy expansion with the legal obligation to protect ecologically significant natural resources. This case, therefore, exemplifies the broader category of climate litigation under the GvG framework, where disputes emerge from the tension between climate mitigation measures and environmental conservation. It demonstrates that judicial intervention may be required not only to facilitate climate action but also to ensure that such action is pursued in a manner consistent with principles of environmental protection and sustainable development.

This case does not feature in the Sabin Center for Climate Change Laws climate litigation database and, consequently, falls outside the scope of the Report’s analysis. Its omission is significant not merely because it excludes an individual dispute, but because it reflects a broader limitation in the Report’s account of climate litigation in India. By relying primarily on reported cases contained within the database, the Report overlooks a range of disputes that, although not explicitly framed as climate litigation, raise fundamental questions concerning the implementation of climate mitigation measures and their interaction with environmental protection. As a result, important strands of Indian climate jurisprudence remain underrepresented.

The absence of this case from the database also has broader conceptual implications. It narrows the Report’s understanding of what may properly be characterised as climate litigation by excluding disputes arising from conflicts between renewable energy development and biodiversity conservation. Consequently, the Indian climate litigation landscape, as presented in the Report, appears more limited than it is in practice, failing to capture litigation that engages with the environmental consequences of climate action itself. Recognising such cases would provide a more comprehensive and contextually grounded understanding of climate litigation in India, particularly under the GvG framework, where the central issue is the governance of climate measures and their compatibility with broader environmental and natural resource protection.

There will be more articles reporting the under-reported cases from India that can well fall within the understanding of climate litigation. Climate Law and India Initiative is grateful to Mr Saksham Misra for sharing a considerable number of cases which form part of his ongoing PhD research.