Authored By: Vikrant Madhurjya
NEF Law College
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India’s 2024 judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India marked a major shift in the way Indian law looks at climate change and biodiversity. The case began as a public interest plea to save the Great Indian Bustard, a bird in danger of extinction, from dying due to power lines. Over time, it grew into a wider debate about how climate change affects basic human rights. The Court, for the first time, said that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution include the right to be protected from the harmful impacts of climate change. It also accepted that laws can be based on an ecocentric approach that values the rights of animals and nature.
Instead of choosing between renewable energy and protecting wildlife, the Court said both goals should go hand in hand. It called for safer power structures and better monitoring. The earlier 2021 order, which asked for all power lines to be put underground, was changed to create a balanced plan that supports both India’s climate goals under the Paris Agreement and the need to protect biodiversity. A team of seven experts was set up to mark key habitats, add bird diverters, and make sure the rules are followed.
This decision helped fill a major gap in India’s climate laws by connecting biodiversity and climate change in environmental checks. It also showed that courts can keep an eye on such cases through ongoing supervision. By learning from global cases like Urgenda and Held v. Montana, the Court gave more strength to the idea of climate justice in developing countries. In the end, what started as a case to save one bird became a model for protecting animals, nature, and the rights of future generations.
Keywords: Climate Change, Great Indian Bustard, Fundamental Rights, Ecocentrism, Renewable Energy
I. Introduction
The decision by Supreme Court of India in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India 1is a big deal for India’s environmental and constitutional law. The case started as a public interest lawsuit to protect the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a rare bird that lives mostly in Rajasthan and Gujarat. A lot of these birds were dying when they hit power lines that were built for renewable energy projects. At first, the case was only about saving one bird, then it quickly grew into a much bigger issue about climate change, development, and basic rights.
The Court had to think about a tough question: how can India fight climate change by using more renewable energy while also protecting wildlife? The Court made a historic and important point in its answer. The court said that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution 2protect the right to life and equality, which includes protection from the bad effects of climate change. In simple terms, this means that the Constitution protects people from serious effects of climate change. The Court made it clear that climate change is not only a policy issue for the government; it is also a constitutional issue.
The Court also knew that animals and nature are valuable on their own. So the court made naturally-centred opinion by viewing nature should be protected not just for people but also because it is important in its own right. But the judges didn’t completely stop projects for renewable energy. The decision chose a balanced the path instead. And changed their previous order, which said that all power lines had to be underground, and came up with a better plan. So, an expert group was put together to find important habitats and make suggestions like putting up bird diverters or burying lines when they are needed. By this India also kept the promise made in the Paris Agreement.
The Court picked up cases from all over the world, like Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherland3s and Held v. State of Montana4, to show that India is part of a larger movement for climate justice. It all started with a case about protecting one bird, but it ended up being a landmark decision about climate rights and the safety of future generations.
II. Factual & Procedural Background
The decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India by the Supreme Court of India is a very huge step for growth for Indian constitutional and environmental law. The case initially started as a public litigation case to protect the endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB). After a few years, it grew into a much larger issue from a simple lawsuit, leading to a constitutional debate about climate change and protecting biodiversity and the limits of fundamental rights. The main issue produced before the court was the rising number of deaths of the Great Indian Bustard caused by collisions with overhead transmission lines that were put up in the state of Rajasthan and Gujarat for renewable energy projects. Then the issue went beyond protecting wildlife to look at a much bigger and larger problem of how climate change and environmental damage affect the rights under the Indian Constitution, such as Articles 14 and 21, which include protection from the bad effects of climate change. By this, the Indian court filled the legal gap by saying that climate resilience is a basic right. With this decision, it was confirmed that harming the environment and vulnerability to climate change are not just policy issues but also constitutional issues that can be watched by the courts. This is very important in a developing country like India, where climate change can cause bigger issues for vulnerable communities and future generations. This ruling is key because it supports an ecocentric way of running the environment. In earlier laws, they mostly focused on sustainable environmental development and balancing human needs with those of other species. The court, on the other hand, recognized the important value of wildlife and ecosystems. It also turned down a strict approach that would’ve seen the growth of renewable energy and the protection of wildlife as two goals that couldn’t be met at the same time. The court changed its earlier order made in 2021 that said all power lines in bustard habitats had to be buried, and instead, it came up with a more clearly balanced solution. It set up a group of experts to find the most important habitats; suggest ways to reduce their impact, like bird diverters; and make sure that the rules were being followed. This balanced framework connects India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement with protecting biodiversity.
III. Legal issues involved
- Is there a fundamental right against climate change under Articles 14 and 21?
Can biodiversity conservation and renewable energy coexist?
Should the 2021 undergrounding mandate be retained or modified?
What institutional mechanism ensures balanced decision-making?
IV. Arguments Advanced by the Parties
A. Petitioners’ Arguments
In the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India, the petitioners argued that the uncontrolled growth of overhead transmission lines in the Great Indian Bustard’s (GIB) natural
habitat was putting a species that was already on the verge of extinction at risk of extinction. So they used the ecological studies, as well as, field data to show about the collisions with power lines which were one of the main issue causing unnatural deaths in the remaining bustard population. Because the bird couldn’t see well in front of it, had a large wingspan, and flew low, it was easy to see and avoid the danger of high-tension lines.
The individuals who had signed the petition answered that the loss of biodiversity and destruction of the habitat is mainly caused by renewable energy infrastructure that should be seen in the larger context of climate change and biodiversity loss. The renewable energy is set up to help fight climate change, but by putting it up in areas that are already fragile to the environment is making things worse. They said that getting rid of the GIB would break Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and, by extension, the right to a healthy environment and ecological balance. They also cited Article 51A(g), 5which says that it is the duty of all citizens—and by extension, the State—to care for living things and protect wildlife.
It was also said that once a species goes extinct, the damage is permanent and can’t be fixed. Consequently, the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity necessitated stringent preventive measures. The petitioners argued that by burying power lines in core and priority Great Indian Bustard habitats was not only a good idea, but also required by the Constitution. They also answered that the duty to stop biodiversity loss that couldn’t be reversed couldn’t be put off because of the cost or the trouble it would cause. They didn’t want any changes to the 2021 rule that required undergrounding. They said that partial measures like bird diverters wouldn’t be enough in high-risk areas.
B. Union Government’s Arguments
The Union Government agreed that the Great Indian Bustard was in serious trouble, but they wanted to change the blanket undergrounding order that had been given before. It said that the need to turn all overhead high-voltage transmission lines in large desert areas of Rajasthan and Gujarat into underground cables would be very difficult and costly. The estimated cost, which could reach thousands of crores, would have a big effect on public resources and the project’s ability to go forward.
The government also said that burying high-capacity transmission lines isn’t always technically possible because of the way the land is shaped, concerns about grid stability, the difficulty of maintenance, and the risk of long outages. It said that such a strict mandate would slow down India’s ambitious renewable energy goals, such as the 500 GW non-fossil fuel capacity goal, and could even weaken India’s commitments under its Nationally Determined Contributions.
The Union suggested a more measured approach instead of a blanket ban. It said that bird diverters, line-marking devices, and habitat-specific mitigation measures could greatly lower the chance of collisions in areas that aren’t very important. The government had trouble on how important it is to find and bring a balance between protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change and making sure we have enough energy. It warned that a rigid order could unintentionally slow down the change to a cleaner energy, which could make India’s overall climate action plan less effective.
So, even though both sides agreed that the environmental threat was serious, they disagreed on the proportionality, feasibility, and constitutional necessity of undergrounding as the main solution.
V. Research and Analysis
Issue 1 (Climate Right): The Court followed the changes from M.C. Mehta (1997) to Vellore Citizens (1996) and used reports from the IPCC AR6 and IPBES to show that climate impacts can be taken to court.
Issue 2 (Balancing): It rejected zero-sum framing by citing Urgenda and Held v. Montana and requiring avian-safe design in EIAs.
Issue 3 (Modification): Technical affidavits showed that the undergrounding wouldn’t work in terrain of 80% and diverters cut deaths by 70–90% (WII data).
Issue 4 (Mechanism): A committee made up of people consisting of different groups to make sure that the zoning is based purely on facts.
VI. Judgment & Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of India had in the case of M.K Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India set down clear, binding rules (ratio decidendi) to change the way India handles with environmental law. Firstly, it said that the protection against the bad effects of climate change is a part of the rights protected by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. By this, the Court made climate resilience a fundamental right by recognizing a constitutional right against climate damage. Secondly, the Court made it clear by saying that biodiversity conservation and renewable energy development are not mutually exclusive; they both must be balanced and based on evidence in order to work together. Third, it changed its earlier blanket order about burying power lines. It now says that burying them is only required in certain priority and core habitats of the Great Indian Bustard. In other areas, bird diverters and other measures would be enough. Finally, it directed the constitution of an expert committee to demarcate zones and finalize recommendations within a stipulated timeframe.
In its obiter dicta, the Court supported ecocentrism as a constitutional value, highlighted the rights of future generations endangered by species extinction, and underscored the necessity of incorporating the climate–biodiversity nexus into environmental impact assessments.
Conclusion
The decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India is a major turning point in Indian constitutional and environmental law. The Supreme Court has now made it clear that protection from the bad effects of climate change is a fundamental right protected by Article 21. By this it makes climate resilience a value of the constitution. From this, the change in the doctrine brings both environmental protection and human rights be in harmony, making climate justice a part of Indian law.
The decision made by the court is also very important because it sets up a formal way for science and the courts to communicate with each other. As the court showed an example of evidence-based and supervisory adjudication by making an expert committee to look into habitat demarcation, the feasibility of undergrounding, and mitigation strategies, by this method makes environmental governance stronger by making sure that judicial directions are based purely on facts and can be put into action.
Thus, the ruling has gained global importance, and it was reportedly cited in advisory proceedings before the International Court of Justice in 2024 about climate obligations brought up by Vanuatu. The case requires green planning that takes biodiversity into account, and it has led to similar public interest lawsuits about endangered species and ecosystems that are in danger of being destroyed.
Reference(S):
1 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 (Supreme Court of India Mar. 21, 2024).
2 INDIA CONST. arts. 14 & 21
3 Urgenda Found. v. State of the Netherlands, Hoge Raad [HR] [Supreme Court of the Netherlands], Dec. 20, 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (Neth.).
4 Held v. State, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct. Aug. 14, 2023).
5 INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g)
6(NDCs) under the Paris Agreement.
6 Paris Agreement art. 4, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.
