Recently, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 to include the 'right against the adverse effects of climate change'. In this context, citing relevant case laws, discuss the role played by Indian judiciary in 'constitutionalizing' of environmental issues.

Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v UoT specified protection from adverse impact of climate change as a part of Art 14 and Art 21. Judiciary's Role: i Subramani Chandon vs UoT: specified protection of health from external environment under Art 21. ii Mc Mehta vs UoT: Protection of rivers and environment from development and pollution. iii Yellow Welfare Forum: Protection from adverse impact of industry tannery on health and environment.

from adverse impact of industry tannery on health and environment. iv Narmada Bachao Andolan vs UoT: Protect rivers, biodiversity from development activities. v Odisha Mining Nill vs UoT: Prevent excessive mining as applicable to tribal, forest areas. vi TN Godavardman: Trees need to be preserved from Forest Conservation Act inclusions. vii Re-regulation on Himalayan construction: involving carrying capacity beyond Forest Conservation Act inclusions. viii Preservation of blue economy through 'SILO note clause': Judiciary plays an archival role in constitutionalizing environment to achieve sustainable development under SDG 13.