After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its historic advisory opinion on climate change on July 23, much of the focus has been on what the court said on emissions, human rights, and financial reparations.But a profound thread runs through the judgment, which has been brought into sharper focus in the separate opinion by Judge Hilary Charlesworth. It is the idea that biodiversity is not merely a passive victim of climate change but a legal and ecological actor in its own right.Seen through this lens, the ICJ’s opinion becomes more than just a warning to polluters — it is a call to re-enchant our relationship with the living world, to see ecosystems not just as “resources” but as climate allies, the carriers of rights, and the subjects of legal care.For India, a country with rich biodiversity and spiritual nature ethics, as well as climate vulnerability, this idea opens the window to a new, restorative vision of environmental law.A living legal system: ecosystems as climate agentsThe ICJ has explicitly recognised the biosphere as a component of the climate system, encompassing “all ecosystems and living organisms”.This makes the protection of nature a core climate duty, not just a secondary concern. This would make mitigation and adaptation about more than just wind turbines or emissions trading, but also about reviving forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and sacred groves.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Why ICJ ruling on climate change is significantJudge Charlesworth has reinforced this view. She has drawn attention to the intersubjectivity between climate change and environmental degradation, noting that obligations under international law must be interpreted with an “ecologically literate understanding”.This ecological literacy requires us to break from siloed legal thinking, and to see ecosystems as part of a complex web of duties and relationships.India’s biodiversity: a constitutional and spiritual callingIndia is one of the most biodiverse countries on Earth, home to more than 7% of global fauna and 12% of flora. It is also among the most vulnerable to climate change – with the Himalayan glaciers retreating, the Sundarbans mangroves drowning, and the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot facing deforestation and fragmentation.All these are not just ecological losses, they are climate failures in legal terms. The ICJ’s opinion has given India a strong platform for the integration of biodiversity protection directly into its climate obligations.Story continues below this ad* Forests as legal carbon sinks: Paragraphs 446 and 457 of the opinion recognise the obligation of states to “preserve and enhance” greenhouse gas sinks, forests, wetlands, and oceans. For India, this affirms that protecting biodiversity is not just a constitutional obligation (Article 48A), but also an international climate duty.* Sundarbans and the right to life: India’s Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 (right to life) to include the right to a healthy environment. The ICJ has now internationalised this idea. If the destruction of mangroves worsens the climate risks for local communities, India is bound both legally and morally to protect those ecosystems.* Sacred ecosystems as climate assets: Many Indian ecosystems such as riverine forests, sacred groves, and highland meadows are protected by not just law, but also by culture. The ICJ’s emphasis on local knowledge and inclusive governance (Charlesworth, paras 10-13) creates space for India to recognise community-led biodiversity as part of its national climate strategy.* Biodiversity as justice: Judge Charlesworth’s opinion includes a critique of the ways in which historical power dynamics have shaped environmental laws.She reminds us that legal systems formed at a time of colonial expansion often led to ignorance of the worldviews of indigenous and colonised peoples. This insight matters deeply for India, whose forest and wildlife laws emerged from colonial control, not community stewardship.Story continues below this adSince the ICJ has now recognised that the obligation to prevent environmental harm is global and ongoing (para 134), India has a basis to argue not just for aid or transition support, but for restorative environmental justice. Reparations must go beyond money – they must include returning agency to indigenous forest dwellers, regenerating lost biodiversity, and protecting community ecosystems.Policy horizons: the way forward for IndiaThis legal moment offers India the opportunity to reimagine its environmental governance in line with the ICJ’s vision. Some concrete steps could include:* Integrating climate-biodiversity into India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement: This requires amendments to include ecosystem restoration targets. Afforestation is already a part of India’s mitigation plan; ecological restoration – including restoring native species, protecting seed banks, and preventing monoculture – must become a central focus.* Recognising legal rights of ecosystems within: Indian courts have already declared the Ganga and Yamuna as legal persons. The ICJ’s opinion strengthens the legal basis for extending personhood to biodiversity-rich landscapes, especially those that are threatened by development.Story continues below this ad* Community-based climate restoration: Tribal and forest-dependent communities must become frontline climate protectors. The ICJ’s stress on “inclusive participation” (Charlesworth, para 13) supports expanding programs like Joint Forest Management (JFM) and recognising community conservation areas as being climate-critical.* Legal reform to end silos: Environmental law in India is fragmented, with all its various aspects being governed separately. The ICJ’s judgment invites India to develop integrated environmental legislation, perhaps through a Biodiversity-Climate Protection Act, which would reflect the living interdependence of ecological systems.A soulful challenge: will and wisdomThe ICJ’s final lines state that a “lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom” (para 456). It is a poetic end to a legal document, and a call that resonates deeply with India’s civilisational ethos.India has always revered nature as sacred, sentient, and cyclical – from the Chipko movement of the 1970s to the tribal belief that cutting a tree without prayer brings misfortune. India’s climate future may depend less on courtroom litigation and more on awakening this spiritual-ecological consciousness into legal and political will.Story continues below this adAlso Read | The milestone ICJ opinion on climate obligations is not just a verdict from afar, but a compassJudge Charlesworth warns against technocratic minimalism. She writes that focusing solely on quantifiable targets runs the risk of erasing the lived experiences of ecological collapse (Charlesworth, para 18).For India, this would mean not just measuring emissions but also listening to the river-worshippers, the honey collectors, the forest women, and the fisherfolk, whose lives lie the hidden costs of climate injustice.Conclusion: planting justice, growing climate peaceThe ICJ’s opinion, along with Judge Charlesworth’s lens, has offered us a chance to advance our restorative vision of climate law that centres ecosystems and communities.For India, it has provided a path forward that passes not only through courtroom advocacy, but also seeks to align legal frameworks with rich ancient ecological wisdom and constitutional values.Story continues below this adIf this shift takes place, India will transform itself from a climate-vulnerable nation to a global leader in climate-biodiversity justice – one that is rooted not just in emissions metrics, but in the soil, the grove, and the spirit of its land.(The author, a Masters in Law from Tilburg University in The Netherlands, teaches at Alliance University, Bengaluru.)