ABSTRACT
A lack of financial resources and access to technical expertise is a colossal structural challenge faced by vulnerable communities pursuing climate litigation, particularly in the Global South. Concurrently, addressing the problem of proof in climate litigation requires securing scientific evidence of harm. While attribution science has improved over the years, it is less accessible in the context of the Global South and vulnerable communities. Indeed, gathering scientific evidence of any kind requires access to financial resources and specialist scientific knowledge. In the context of climate litigation, a lack of these resources can undermine a plaintiff’s right of access to justice, rendering them more vulnerable to climate change. This chapter presents a doctrinal response and a potential litigation strategy to address these challenges in India, namely, the ‘Indian iteration of the precautionary principle’. Existing literature recommends the application of the precautionary principle to address the problem of proof. The precautionary principle allows regulatory action in supervening scientific uncertainty. However, the burden of proving ‘scientific uncertainty’ would ordinarily rest on the plaintiff. By addressing this in environmental public interest litigation, the Indian Supreme Court has reversed the burden of proof. Consequently, the plaintiff is relieved from shouldering the evidentiary burden, easing structural barriers and facilitating access to justice. Therefore, the Indian iteration of the precautionary principle is an instrumental litigation strategy for climate litigants from vulnerable communities across the Global South.
