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). This report relies on a methodology grounded entirely in National Green Tribunal cases, drawing exclusively from petitions, suo motu actions, daily orders, and final judgments issued by the Tribunal. By focusing on NGT records rather than global climate‑litigation databases, the analysis reflects the reality that climate‑related harms in India often emerge through local ecological conflicts rather than national‑level climate policy disputes. The Tribunal’s docket shows that renewable‑energy development, particularly large‑scale solar projects in Rajasthan, has become a site of recurring litigation as communities and activists seek accountability for environmental damage occurring in the name of clean energy. These disputes can be characterised as GvG Cases and thereby climate litigation. India’s climate commitments, recent proceedings before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) show that the rapid growth of solar infrastructure can generate significant environmental conflicts, particularly in regions where biodiversity and cultural heritage are deeply intertwined. The cases emerging from Rajasthan between 2023 and 2025 illustrate how the Tribunal is increasingly called upon to address harms arising not from traditional polluting industries, but from projects that are themselves part of India’s low‑carbon transition. These disputes, centred on the illegal felling of Khejri (Prosopis cineraria) trees, highlight how climate governance in India is becoming more localised, more community‑driven, and more attentive to ecological integrity.

The Khejri tree occupies a unique place in the Thar Desert ecosystem. It prevents desertification, enriches soil fertility, supports pastoral livelihoods, and holds deep cultural significance for the Bishnoi community, whose conservation ethic has protected the species for generations. As solar companies acquire and convert agricultural land for project development, allegations of illegal tree felling have become increasingly common. In Rajender Kumar Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan (2023), the Tribunal observed that several solar companies were involved in the illegal felling of thousands of Khejri trees without obtaining mandatory permissions from competent authorities. The case marked an early judicial recognition that renewable‑energy expansion was generating ecological harm at a scale that required regulatory intervention.

Concerns intensified in 2024 when the NGT took suo motu cognizance of a letter petition submitted by an environmental activist in Ganeshdan Beetu v. State of Rajasthan. The petition alleged that a solar company in Bikaner district was cutting Khejri trees at night and selling the timber to POP factories, clearing agricultural land leased for solar projects, and operating in violation of multiple environmental norms. The Tribunal’s decision to initiate proceedings on its own motion underscored its willingness to respond proactively to environmental harm, even in the absence of a formal petition. It also signalled a growing judicial sensitivity to the ecological The most detailed judicial scrutiny came in Ram Ratan Jakhar v. Union of India (2025), where the applicant alleged violations of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Rajasthan Preservation of Trees Act, 2006, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and the principle of sustainable development. The Tribunal found that 290 Khejri trees had been illegally felled by a solar‑energy company developing projects in Bikaner district. It directed the company to deposit ₹29,000 toward afforestation, calculated at ₹100 per tree, and ordered compensatory afforestation of ten times the number of trees cut. This order established a clear precedent for quantifying ecological damage and linking it to financial and restorative obligations, reinforcing the idea that climate‑friendly development cannot proceed at the expense of ecological stability.

Across these cases, several themes emerge. Renewable‑energy expansion is increasingly intersecting with ecological protection, creating new forms of climate‑related litigation that challenge the assumption that clean‑energy projects are inherently environmentally benign. The Tribunal’s orders consistently emphasise sustainable development, insisting that climate‑mitigation efforts must not undermine biodiversity or cultural heritage. The rise of suo motu interventions reflects a more proactive judicial posture, one that recognises the urgency of addressing ecological harm in rapidly changing landscapes. And the prominence of petitions filed by individuals, activists, and community members demonstrates that climate governance in India is becoming more participatory, with local actors shaping national conversations about environmental accountability.

These cases have broader implications for India’s climate governance. They show that the country’s renewable‑energy transition must be accompanied by stronger regulatory oversight, clearer land‑use safeguards, and more robust environmental‑compliance mechanisms. They also highlight the need to integrate biodiversity protection and cultural conservation into climate‑mitigation strategies, particularly in ecologically fragile regions like the Thar Desert. As India accelerates its solar‑energy ambitions, the NGT’s jurisprudence suggests that courts and tribunals will play an increasingly important role in ensuring that the transition remains environmentally just and socially equitable.

The Khejri‑tree litigation from Rajasthan offers a window into the future of climate litigation in India. It reveals a landscape where environmental harm arising from clean‑energy projects is scrutinised with the same seriousness as traditional pollution cases, and where communities are asserting their rights to ecological integrity even as the country pursues ambitious climate goals. The National Green Tribunal’s interventions between 2023 and 2025 demonstrate a growing judicial commitment to balancing climate‑friendly development with the protection of culturally and ecologically vital species. As renewable‑energy infrastructure continues to expand, these cases will likely shape the contours of climate justice and environmental accountability in India for years to come.

Climate‑related litigation in India is increasingly emerging from conflicts within the country’s own green transition, a dynamic captured by the Global Trends in Climate Litigation Report 2026 through the category of Green versus Green (GvG) cases. By grounding its methodology entirely in National Green Tribunal records, the Report shows that climate harms in India are not primarily the result of national‑level policy disputes but of local ecological disruptions caused by renewable‑energy expansion. The rapid growth of solar infrastructure in Rajasthan has become a focal point of these tensions, where clean‑energy projects collide with biodiversity protection, cultural heritage, and community rights.

The Khejri‑tree cases from 2023 to 2025 illustrate this emerging pattern. As solar companies acquire agricultural land, allegations of illegal felling of Khejri trees—central to the Thar Desert ecosystem and sacred to the Bishnoi community—have multiplied. The NGT’s interventions, from early recognition of large‑scale tree cutting in Rajender Kumar Bishnoi, to proactive suo motu action in Ganeshdan Beetu, to detailed scrutiny and restorative orders in Ram Ratan Jakhar, reveal a judiciary increasingly attentive to ecological harm arising from climate‑friendly development. These cases show courts insisting that renewable‑energy expansion must adhere to principles of sustainable development, comply with environmental norms, and respect local ecological integrity.

Taken together, the Rajasthan litigation demonstrates that India’s climate governance is becoming more localised, participatory, and sensitive to ecological and cultural contexts. It also underscores that the renewable‑energy transition requires stronger regulatory oversight, clearer land‑use safeguards, and mechanisms that prevent biodiversity loss in the pursuit of climate goals. As solar infrastructure continues to expand, GvG cases will likely shape the future of climate litigation in India, ensuring that the pursuit of clean energy does not come at the expense of the very ecosystems and communities that climate action seeks to protect.