M K RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570 

1. Case Title & Citation

M K RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570 

2. Court Name & Bench

Supreme Court of India and three-judge bench.

3. Date of Judgment

21.03.2024

4. Parties Involved

Petitioners: M.K. Ranjitsinh and other individuals/environmentalists concerned with the conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).

Respondents: Union of India and other governmental bodies responsible for energy and environmental management.

5. Facts of the Case

 The Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a huge bird that is mostly found in desert regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat and is categorized as critically endangered, is in grave danger. The petitioners contended that the high frequency of fatal collisions caused by overhead power transmission lines, particularly in these areas, is a major contributor in the sharp reduction of the GIB population. About 100,000 birds in India perish every year as a result of collisions with power lines, according to the 2018 Power Line Mitigation Report that was referenced in the case. The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to intervene in order to require protective measures like burying power lines underground and adding bird diverters to existing lines, as well as to stop the development of new windmill and solar power projects in areas designated as sensitive by the Indian Wildlife Institute. The Supreme Court issued an interim decision in April 2021 that required undergrounding in priority areas and limited the installation of new overhead transmission lines over a large region (about 99,000 square kilometres) of the GIB habitat. The petition was submitted in 2019. The Court balanced conservation duties with development requirements, acknowledging the petitioners’ environmental concerns.

6. Issues Raised

• Whether steps taken for the protection and recovery of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) were effective?
• Whether it is possible to balance the conservation efforts for the Great Indian Bustard with the development of renewable energy in India?

7. Arguments of the Parties

MK Ranjitsinh led the petitioners’ arguments for:

• Preservation of the endangered Lesser Florican and Great Indian Bustard, which are threatened by overhead power wires.
• In vital habitats, overhead transmission lines must be replaced with underground cables.
• Wildlife protection is acknowledged as a constitutional requirement in Articles 21 and 48A.
• The petitioner also asked that the two endangered species be designated as a national priority and that an Empowered Committee be established to supervise conservation efforts.

The respondents likely argued for:

• Infrastructure for renewable energy is crucial to India’s climate pledges.
• The conversion of overhead wires to underground cables presents both financial and technical problems.
• Striking a balance between the demands of conservation and development.
• Subterranean transmission’s high prices and real-world challenges in renewable energy projects.
• They contended that the ruling had far-reaching effects on the power industry and the energy transition, and that some factors—like India’s international obligations under the Paris Agreement to cut emissions and switch to renewable energy—were disregarded.

8. Judgment / Final Decision

The court emphasized how vital it is to prevent the extinction of these diminishing populations. Divertors must also be installed in order to prevent additional declines in the species. In reference to the transmission lines, the Court ordered that before a transmission channel was actually installed, a feasibility analysis be conducted. As the Court correctly pointed out, creating breeding facilities with adequate care would be a crucial first step in preventing the extinction of this extremely endangered species. As a result of the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and other international agreements, India has committed to fighting climate change. The court suggested a number of additional strategies for raising money. Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, which requires corporate social responsibility based on a company’s net worth or profit, was one recommendation made to each electricity utility. Section 166(2) of the same behave, which mandates that company directors behave in good faith and in the best interests of the business, the community, employees, other stakeholders, and the environment, was another recommendation. Significant amounts are also held by national and state agencies under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, which stipulates in Sections 4, 5, and 6 that the money must be used to lessen threats to wildlife. A new constitutional right was recognised which is to be free from the adverse effects of climate change within the ambit of Article 21 and 14 of the Indian Constitution.

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court ruled that it was not possible to outright ban overhead electrical wires. While reaffirming that biodiversity preservation, sustainable development, and renewable energy objectives should be balanced in environmental policy decisions, it also recognized the importance of GIB conservation. In cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa, and Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3) v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, the Court noted that Articles 48A and 51A (g) must be interpreted in order to take into account Article 21, which acknowledges the significance of the natural world. These clauses highlight the value of the environment, which is reflected in other sections of the Constitution as a right. While Article 14 states that everyone shall have equality before the law and equal protection under the law, Article 21 acknowledges the right to life and personal liberty. As a result, the Court suggested amending its decision from April 19, 2021, and stressed the importance of expert input in environmental policy problems. It also advised prudence when issuing broad instructions in the absence of supporting data. It called for an expert committee to strike a compromise between GIB preservation and sustainable growth, recalling the general ban on overhead transmission lines. The court recommends amending the order to include domain experts in determining whether undergrounding power lines is feasible, guaranteeing thoughtful decision-making in line with regional features and conservation objectives.

10. Conclusion / Observations

According to Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to be free from the negative consequences of climate change as a separate basic right. As a result, India’s environmental jurisprudence grew. The conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), which is primarily endangered by overhead power transmission lines, and India’s developmental need to support renewable energy projects (wind and solar) in order to fight climate change are two important but conflicting interests that the Court attempted to balance.

The Court changed its previous orders to require mitigation measures like installing bird diverters in other areas and to limit the requirement to underground power lines to priority GIB habitats where feasible, as determined by an expert committee, rather than requiring blanket undergrounding.

This landmark judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s nuanced approach to environmental jurisprudence, aligning legal directives with practical constraints and broader policy goals. By revisiting the 2021 order, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding endangered species without derailing India’s renewable energy transition.