Context: Catastrophic floods in Nepal in August 2026, resulting in thousands of deaths, have been attributed largely to climate change.
- The article argues that flood victims in Nepal could explore climate litigation against major Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitters to seek accountability and compensation.
- Similar climate-related litigation has emerged in Europe and the U.S. over the last two decades, involving violations of rights to life, health, property, privacy and family life.
Legal Challenges in Climate Litigation
- Causation: Establishing a direct causal link between the failure of a distant state or corporation to reduce GHG emissions and specific flood damage is extremely difficult.
- Cumulative emissions: Individual emitters contribute incrementally to global GHG concentrations, which collectively increase the likelihood of adverse climatic events.
- Multiple intervening factors: The actual impact of climate events depends on exposure, vulnerability and resilience of affected populations.
- Victim identification: Plaintiffs must identify a specific group exposed to climate risks, rather than relying on harm to the general population, to establish legal standing and seek compensation.
- Legal standing (Locus Standi): The legal right of an individual or group to approach a court to enforce their rights or seek remedies.
Nepal's Case for Climate Litigation
- Vulnerable population: People living along the Tibet–Nepal border, particularly in the Trishuli and Bhote Koshi river basins, have faced Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs) over the last three decades.
- Accelerated glacial retreat: Research on the Tibetan Autonomous Region indicates that glacier area and numbers have declined at an accelerating rate since 2010.
- Future risks: Climate scientists predict that mountain glaciers will lose most of their volume by the end of the 21st century, threatening alpine ecosystems and human settlements.
- Imminent catastrophe: The pre-existing climate-related risks in these regions could help establish the legal threshold of an imminent catastrophe and identify a specific vulnerable population for litigation.
Important International Climate Litigation Cases
- Lliuya v. RWE (Germany, 2025)
- Plaintiff: Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian national, sued RWE, a German energy company, under German private nuisance law.
- Ground: RWE's past and present coal-fired power generation and associated CO₂ emissions allegedly contributed to glacier instability near the plaintiff's home in Peru.
- Judgment: On May 28, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm recognised that RWE could, in principle, be held legally responsible for climate-related risks, although the specific claim was dismissed due to insufficient proof of imminent danger.
- Significance:
- Individual emitters' past emissions can proportionally contribute to climate risks.
- German civil law can apply to transboundary climate-related harm.
- Geographical distance and the global nature of climate change do not automatically protect corporations from liability.
- Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands, November 2024)
- The Dutch Court of Appeal recognised that companies making significant contributions to climate change have a duty of care to combat it, particularly when they have the capacity to reduce emissions.
- This obligation was examined under Dutch tort law and human rights standards.
- The judgment highlighted corporate responsibility in addressing climate change.
- Asmania v. Holcim (Switzerland)
- Plaintiffs: Four Indonesian islanders sued Holcim, a Swiss building-materials company, before the Cantonal Court of Zug.
- Ground: Excessive CO₂ emissions by Holcim were alleged to contribute to climate change and threaten the plaintiffs' homes and livelihoods.
- Relief sought: Reduction of GHG emissions and compensation for present and future damages.
Way Forward
- Nepalese flood victims could explore litigation against major GHG emitters to establish accountability for climate-related harm.
- Identify particularly vulnerable populations and establish evidence of their exposure to foreseeable climate risks.
- Develop scientific evidence linking cumulative and individual corporate emissions with increased climate risks.
- Use international judicial developments to strengthen arguments for corporate responsibility and compensation.
- Although judgments in other jurisdictions are not binding precedents, they provide persuasive legal reasoning and demonstrate growing judicial recognition of climate-related duties.
Additional UPSC-Relevant Concepts
- Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF)
- Sudden release of large volumes of water from a glacial lake due to failure of its natural dam, generally formed by moraine or ice.
- Causes: Glacier retreat, formation and expansion of glacial lakes, unstable moraine dams, avalanches and earthquakes.
- Impacts: Flash floods, loss of life, destruction of infrastructure, soil erosion and damage to downstream ecosystems.
- Himalayan countries, including India, Nepal and Bhutan, are particularly vulnerable.
- Climate Litigation
- Legal proceedings initiated against governments or corporations for inadequate climate action, excessive GHG emissions or failure to protect people from climate-related risks.
- Major legal grounds: Right to life, right to a healthy environment, human rights obligations, tort law, negligence and duty of care.
- Significance: Extends climate accountability beyond governments to private corporations and strengthens the principle of climate justice.
