Climate Change, Internal Displacement, and the Right to Life: Assessing India’s Legal Framework

Abstract: –

Climate change is increasingly a major cause of internal displacement in India, forcing millions to leave their homes due to floods, cyclones, droughts, and other extreme weather events. Despite this reality, India’s legal framework remains largely reactive, focusing on short‑term disaster relief rather than structural protection for climate‑displaced communities. This article analyses the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution the right to life and personal liberty as a basis for protecting climate‑displaced persons. It critically examines judicial interpretations, statutory frameworks like the Disaster Management Act, policy gaps, and international norms. The article concludes that while constitutional safeguards offer a foundation, significant legal reforms and proactive policies are necessary to uphold the dignity, livelihood, and rehabilitation of climate‑impacted populations in India.

Keywords : Climate Change, Internal Displacement, Disaster Management Law, Climate Justice.

1. Introduction

Climate change has moved beyond scientific projections to become a present-day driver of human displacement. In India—one of the most climate-vulnerable countries—floods, cyclonic storms, droughts, riverbank erosion, and heat waves are increasingly forcing large communities away from their homes, lands, and sources of livelihood. Reports indicate that in 2021 alone, nearly 50 lakh (five million) people in India were internally displaced primarily due to climate-related disasters, contributing significantly to the global scale of internal displacement.  Such environmentally induced displacement raises urgent legal and human rights concerns. Unlike refugees who cross international borders, internally displaced persons remain within the jurisdiction of their own state, making domestic legal protection central to their survival and dignity. However, India lacks a comprehensive legal regime that recognises or defines “climate-displaced persons,” resulting in a legal vacuum where constitutional rights exist in principle but lack clear, tailored enforcement mechanisms. Despite the progressive expansion of environmental and climate jurisprudence under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, existing statutory frameworks continue to treat displacement as a temporary by-product of discrete disasters rather than a structural and long-term consequence of climate change. Persons displaced by slow-onset phenomena such as sea-level rise, desertification, or recurrent flooding thus remain excluded from sustained rehabilitation and legal protection. This disconnect between constitutional recognition and statutory implementation underscores the need to critically examine whether Article 21—guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty—can provide a robust legal foundation for protecting climate-displaced persons. Accordingly, this article examines judicial interpretations, statutory responses, international norms, existing challenges, and potential legal reforms aimed at developing a more inclusive and rights-based framework for addressing climate-induced internal displacement in India.

1. Climate‑Induced Displacement in India: Scale and Impact

India’s vast geoclimatic diversity encompassing floodplains, extensive coastlines, arid and semi-arid regions, riverine deltas, and glaciated mountain ecosystems—renders it acutely vulnerable to climate variability and extremes.  Scientific assessments increasingly indicate a rise in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, erratic monsoon patterns, glacial melt, and sea-level rise, all of which exacerbate existing socio-economic vulnerabilities across regions. These climatic stressors interact with poverty, dependence on climate-sensitive livelihoods, and inadequate infrastructure, intensifying the risk of displacement for millions. Empirical data underscores the scale of the problem. Reports by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) consistently identify disasters many of them climate-linked as the leading cause of internal displacement both globally and within India. In 2024 alone, India recorded an estimated 54 lakh instances of internal displacement, with floods accounting for the majority, reflecting the heightened sensitivity of its population to climate-induced shocks. Unlike temporary migration undertaken as a coping strategy, such displacement often entails prolonged or permanent loss of habitation and livelihood, particularly in regions facing recurrent flooding, riverbank erosion, and coastal degradation. The consequences of climate-induced displacement extend far beyond physical relocation. Displacement disrupts access to basic necessities such as shelter, clean water, sanitation, healthcare, education, and stable employment. A farmer displaced by repeated flooding or drought loses not only land but also livelihood security and social identity. Similarly, coastal and riverine communities uprooted by erosion or salinisation experience the erosion of cultural practices, community networks, and traditional ways of life. These losses are not merely economic or environmental in nature; they strike at the core of human dignity and the quality of life protected under constitutional norms. Viewed through this lens, climate-induced displacement emerges as a profound rights-based concern, implicating the constitutional promise of life with dignity rather than a transient consequence of natural calamities. The scale and consequences of climate-induced displacement in India thus raise questions that extend beyond environmental management or disaster response. When displacement results in the loss of shelter, livelihood, health, education, and social belonging, it directly implicates the constitutional understanding of life with dignity. These harms are neither incidental nor peripheral; they strike at the substantive core of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this context, displacement caused by climate change cannot be viewed merely as an administrative challenge but must be examined through the lens of constitutional rights and state obligations. This necessitates an inquiry into how Indian courts have interpreted Article 21 in relation to environmental protection, human dignity, and emerging climate harms, and whether this jurisprudence can be extended to protect persons displaced by climate change.

• Article 21 and Judicial Interpretation: Right to Life, Environment, and Climate
• Article 21: Broad Protective Scope

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over decades, the Indian judiciary has expanded the scope of Article 21 to include a wide range of human rights essentials—health, livelihood, shelter, and a clean environment—integral to a dignified life. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The judgment is significant because climate‑induced displacement undermines livelihood and social existence itself. When displacement strips persons of their homes, jobs, and community support systems, it undermines their constitutional right to life.

• Environment as Part of Article 21

Recently, the Supreme Court has explicitly linked climate change impacts with Article 21, recognizing a right against the adverse effects of climate change as part of the constitutional right to life. In a 2024 judgment, a three‑judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India observed that without a healthy and stable environment—free from catastrophic climate impacts the right to life cannot be fully realised. Although there is no single climate change statute, Article 21 and Article 14 together provide a basis for citizens to claim protection from climate harms. This judicial recognition is important for climate jurisprudence. If environmental degradation, rising heat waves, and flood risks affect health and survival, the right to life necessarily encompasses climate resilience obligations on the state.

1. Existing Legal and Policy Framework

• . Disaster Management Act, 2005

India primarily addresses climate-related disasters through the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (DMA), which establishes a comprehensive institutional architecture for disaster preparedness, response, mitigation, and recovery. The Act creates authorities at the national, state, and district levels, including the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) and State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs), tasked with formulating disaster management plans and coordinating relief efforts. While the DMA empowers authorities to provide emergency relief, temporary shelter, and rehabilitation assistance, its conceptual framework is oriented towards sudden and episodic disasters such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes, and industrial accidents. Climate change, however, increasingly manifests through slow-onset processes including sea-level rise, salinisation of agricultural land, desertification, glacial retreat, and chronic drought which gradually erode livelihoods and habitability. These phenomena do not fit neatly within the Act’s disaster-response model, leading to a gap between legal provisions and lived realities. Moreover, rehabilitation under the DMA is largely discretionary and time-bound, focusing on immediate post-disaster relief rather than long-term resettlement, livelihood restoration, or community relocation. As a result, populations displaced incrementally by climate impacts often fall outside the scope of sustained legal protection.

• Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policies

India has developed rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) frameworks primarily for persons displaced by development projects, such as dams, highways, and industrial corridors. Policies governing project-affected persons prescribe procedures for compensation, land acquisition, resettlement benefits, and livelihood assistance. These frameworks recognise displacement as a structural consequence of state action and attempt, albeit imperfectly, to mitigate its impacts. In contrast, climate-induced displacement lacks explicit statutory recognition. Persons displaced due to riverbank erosion, repeated flooding, or loss of agricultural viability are not classified under any distinct legal category. Consequently, they must rely on general disaster relief schemes or welfare programmes, which are neither designed nor sufficient to address permanent or repeated displacement. This absence of recognition results in inconsistent state responses, lack of uniform standards for compensation, and uncertainty regarding land rights, housing security, and access to public services. Climate-displaced persons remain legally invisible, despite facing displacement comparable in scale and severity to development-induced displacement.

• . International Frameworks

At the international level, instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement provide an authoritative normative framework for the protection of internally displaced persons (IDPs). These principles affirm rights to dignity, safety, access to basic necessities, and protection against arbitrary displacement, regardless of the cause. Although the Guiding Principles are not legally binding, they have been widely recognised as reflecting international human rights standards. India, however, has not enacted domestic legislation aligning directly with these principles. Their application remains largely aspirational, with limited integration into disaster management planning or rehabilitation policies. This gap between international norms and domestic law highlights the absence of a rights-based approach to internal displacement in India, particularly in the context of climate change.

1. Gaps and Challenges in Legal Protection

• Absence of Legal Status for Climate-Displaced Persons

One of the most significant gaps in India’s legal framework is the absence of any statutory recognition of climate-displaced persons. Indian law does not define or acknowledge categories such as “climate migrants,” “climate refugees,” or “environmentally displaced persons.” Without legal status, affected individuals cannot claim targeted protections, relocation assistance, or enforceable rehabilitation rights. This legal vacuum disproportionately affects marginalised communities coastal populations, small farmers, indigenous groups, and informal workers who lack the resources to adapt independently. Displacement caused by sea-level rise, desertification, or recurrent flooding results in loss of housing, employment, and social networks, yet remains legally unaddressed beyond ad hoc relief measures. The absence of legal recognition also undermines the enforceability of constitutional rights under Article 21, as displaced persons lack institutional mechanisms to translate judicial principles into tangible entitlements.

• Reactive Framework vs. Proactive Resilience

India’s existing framework is predominantly reactive, emphasising emergency response after disasters occur. While relief measures such as temporary shelters, food assistance, and compensation are crucial, they do not address the structural nature of climate displacement. Long-term rehabilitation requires proactive planning, including livelihood diversification, planned relocation, infrastructure development, and social reintegration. The current legal regime does not mandate such measures, leaving communities trapped in cycles of displacement and vulnerability. Without a proactive resilience-based approach, climate-affected populations remain exposed to repeated displacement, economic precarity, and social marginalisation.

1. Comparative and International Perspectives

Several countries facing acute climate vulnerability have begun experimenting with legal and policy responses tailored to climate displacement. Bangladesh, for instance, has incorporated relocation and adaptation planning into its national climate strategies, particularly for communities affected by riverbank erosion and coastal flooding. While implementation challenges persist, the recognition of displacement as a policy concern marks an important step. Similarly, Pacific Island nations such as Kiribati and Tuvalu have explored migration pathways and bilateral agreements as part of long-term climate adaptation strategies. These initiatives reflect an understanding that climate displacement requires both domestic legal preparedness and international cooperation. At the international level, human rights bodies increasingly recognise environmental degradation and climate change as human rights issues. The UN Human Rights Council has affirmed that states have obligations to protect the right to life, health, and dignity in the face of climate-related harms.  These developments reinforce the argument that climate displacement must be addressed through a rights-based legal framework rather than solely as a humanitarian concern.

• Recommendations for Legal Reform
• Recognition of Climate‑Displaced Persons

The most critical reform required is the statutory recognition of climate-displaced persons within Indian law. At present, the absence of a legal definition renders such individuals invisible in policy and practice, despite the scale and permanence of climate-induced displacement. Without formal recognition, affected populations remain dependent on discretionary relief measures rather than enforceable legal entitlements. A dedicated legislative framework such as a National Climate Displacement Act should define climate-displaced persons to include those forced to relocate due to both sudden-onset disasters and slow-onset climate impacts, including sea-level rise, desertification, glacial retreat, and chronic flooding. This recognition would operationalise constitutional guarantees under Article 21 by translating judicial principles into concrete statutory rights. Such legislation should integrate relevant international norms, particularly the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, while grounding them within India’s constitutional structure. Statutory recognition would also enable the collection of reliable data, improve inter-governmental coordination, and ensure uniform standards of protection across states.

• Strengthened Rehabilitation and Livelihood Support

Recognition alone is insufficient without a rights-based rehabilitation framework that ensures long-term social and economic reintegration. Existing disaster relief mechanisms focus on temporary assistance and short-term recovery, failing to address the enduring consequences of displacement such as loss of livelihoods, land insecurity, and social marginalisation. Legal reform should mandate comprehensive rehabilitation as an enforceable right, encompassing permanent housing, land tenure security, livelihood restoration, access to education and healthcare, and inclusion in social welfare systems. Planned relocation must be treated not as a last-minute emergency response but as a structured, participatory process guided by principles of dignity, consent, and cultural preservation. Importantly, rehabilitation should prioritise community-based relocation wherever possible to prevent social fragmentation. A statutory framework would impose clear obligations on state authorities, reduce arbitrariness, and allow displaced persons to seek judicial remedies in cases of non-compliance.

• Climate Impact Assessments

The third reform requires embedding climate displacement concerns within proactive climate governance and judicial oversight mechanisms. Current legal frameworks respond after displacement has occurred, rather than anticipating and preventing it. This reactive approach exacerbates human suffering and increases long-term costs. Statutory climate impact assessments should be mandated for disaster management planning, infrastructure development, and coastal and riverine governance. These assessments can identify high-risk regions, inform adaptation strategies, and guide planned relocation before displacement becomes unavoidable. Judicial oversight plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability. Building on the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence linking climate change to Article 21, courts can develop guidelines requiring state authorities to adopt preventive measures, protect vulnerable populations, and ensure compliance with rehabilitation obligations. Such oversight would reinforce climate governance as a constitutional responsibility rather than a policy choice.

• Conclusion

Climate-induced internal displacement presents one of the most pressing yet under-recognised challenges to constitutional governance in India. As climate change increasingly disrupts livelihoods, habitability, and social stability, displacement can no longer be treated as a temporary humanitarian issue confined to disaster response. It is a structural and long-term phenomenon that directly implicates the constitutional guarantee of the right to life under Article 21, encompassing dignity, livelihood, and security. While judicial interpretations have progressively expanded environmental and climate rights, statutory frameworks remain inadequate to translate these principles into enforceable protections for climate-displaced persons. The Disaster Management Act, 2005, and existing rehabilitation mechanisms are ill-suited to address slow-onset climate impacts and permanent displacement, resulting in legal invisibility and fragmented state responses. This disconnect between constitutional jurisprudence and legislative action undermines the effective realisation of fundamental rights for some of the most vulnerable populations. Addressing this gap requires a shift from reactive relief to a rights-based, forward-looking legal framework that recognises climate displacement as a constitutional concern rather than an administrative contingency. Statutory recognition, enforceable rehabilitation entitlements, proactive climate governance, and judicial oversight together form the foundation of such a framework. By aligning domestic law with constitutional principles and international normative standards, India can move toward a more just and resilient response to climate displacement. Ultimately, safeguarding the dignity and rights of climate-displaced persons is not merely a policy choice but a constitutional imperative intrinsic to the evolving meaning of the right to life in an era of climate change.

Referances

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (2022).
2. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Global Report on Internal Displacement 2022.
3. UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/53, pmbl.
4. India Const. art. 21; see also M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (2000) 6 SCC 213 (India).
5. Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, India’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment (2021).
6. IPCC, Sixth Assessment Report (2022).
7. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Global Report on Internal Displacement (latest ed.).
8. ; see also Nearly 5 mn in India displaced due to climate change, disasters in 2021: UN, Business Standard (June 18, 2022).