CASE COMMENT ON M.K. RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA (GREAT INDIAN BUSTARD CASE)

INTRODUCTION

“Create the right environment before you work on the future. There’s nothing worse than walking through hell to get to heaven”

-Troy Gathers

Development and Environment both are inversely proportional to each other. If we chose development, there will be an adverse impact on environment and if environment is prioritized then development will eventually get hindered. To develop a stage of equilibrium between the two is an uphill battle. It has been observed from quite a longtime that when there is a dispute regarding environment and the pollutant, the Supreme Court (hereinafter as SC) has given due recognition to the environment. Also, the SC in numerous judgements has declared that the State should formulate such policies which not only benefit the environment but also beneficial to human race. Sometimes dispute may arise between two meritorious causes, nevertheless, it is important to choose and opt for the more commendable cause. The present case deals with such dispute only, it navigates the intricate balance between economic development and environment protection and its implications on environmental governance of India. 

FACTS

1. The case was a writ petition filed before the SC, to invoke its jurisdiction and protect two endangered birds, the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lessor Florican.
2. The GIB is native to southern and western India. Rajasthan is the home to majority of population of these birds. Internation Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has declared this bird to be endangered species. The population of GIB saw a steep decline, there are many factors leading to the shrinking population such as pollution, climate change, threat of other animals, one of such reasons is Overhead Transmission lines. 
3. The present petition was in reference to the order by the SC on 19^th April, 2021, where the court in effort to protect the said species of birds ordered to install divertors and a study to be conducted to determine whether underground transmission lines would be feasible than overhead powerlines.
4. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy sought some modifications on basis that the judgement would impact power sector adversely, the power lines cannot be undergrounded, India’s International commitments for reducing emissions and carbon footprints and causing of pollution by the usage of coal. 
5. Furthermore, they argued that a blanket ban would not serve the purpose of conserving GIB. Hence, this resulted in the petition.

ISSUES

• Whether the steps taken for the conservation of GIB and Lessor Florican are effective or not?
• Whether a balance can possibly be created between conserving GIB and developing renewable energy?
• Whether the blanket decision given by the court were necessary and sustainable in the long run?

CONTENTIONS

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER

1. The Petitioner sought for urgent response plan for protection and recovery of GIB, which includes installation of bird diverters, sanction and renewal of projects, dismantling powerlines, wind turbines, and solar panels within and outside the critical habitats, installation of predators-proof enclosures in breeding habitats, programs for curbing dog population, provisions to be made for no-grazing zones and restricted grazing zones in critical and semi-critical habitats, a prohibiting the use of insecticides and pesticides within 5 km radius of critical habitats also prohibition on encroachment of grasslands in and around critical and semi-critical habitats. 
2. Additionally, to issue directions to submit status reports, measures should be taken to conserve grasslands and to issue directions to Ministry of Defence to collaborate to conserve GIB.
3. Furthermore, to appoint committee to look-after the implementation directed by the court. 
4. Lastly, to declare that state authorities should adhere to the decisions of the Empowered Committee.

ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT

1. Respondents number 1, 3, and 4 (Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy respectively), sought for modifications in the court’s order dated 19 Aril 2021.
2. They argued that there will be an adverse impact of judgement on power sector, they added that it is not technically possible to underground the high voltage power lines.
3. Further, they stated that India is signatory to agreements signed under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for transforming fossil fuels and to curb emissions.
4. That the instructed the area is much larger than the actual dwelling place of GIB, also the said area has a high potential of solar and wind energy.
5. Lastly, it was submitted that usage of coal power would cause pollution.

RATIONALE

The SC while delivering the judgement took a note of India’s International commitments. India being a signatory to International Agreement of UNFCCC, which obligates towards reducing emission. Further, the court acknowledges the fact that it is the responsibility of State to ensure and to control such activities which causes damage to the environment in their jurisdiction and beyond. The apex court also took regard of the Paris Agreement binding towards its signatory members, to transform fossil fuels and reduce emissions. 

The court while declaring the right to clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change dwelled upon Art. 21 and Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Also, the court reiterated several judgements such as MC Mehta v Kamalnath, Virender gaur v State of Haryana, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v C. Kenchappa, Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v Bombay Environmental Action Group.

The hon’ble Court in order to enunciate the importance of solar power as a renewable energy, quoted various initiatives made in this field. For the menace of climate change court cited various foreign judgement for the better understand of laws pertaining to the developmental and sustainable goals of the other countries. 

DEFECTS OF LAW

The present case reveals serious shortcomings in Environmental matters. There is lack of comprehensive committee which could provide inputs regarding the environmental policies. The blanket ban imposed showcases the need of such Committee. Also, the judgement emphasizes more towards the submissions made by the defendants of cost-efficiency and technology rather than the more important aspect of conserving the biodiversity.

INFERENCE

“Sooner or later, we will have to recognise that the Earth has rights, too, to live without pollution. What mankind must know is that human beings cannot live without Mother Earth, but the planet can live without humans” – Evo Morales

The abovementioned quotation suited the best to the present case MK Ranjitsinh v UOI, wherein the court highlighted the importance of environment protection in the light of sustainable development. It can be inferred from the judgement that there is an urgent need for protecting the decreasing population of the GIBs and also to formulate a dedicated committee towards the environment. Further, the court opted for a comprehensive approach to resolve the dispute between the two noble causes. The judgement thereby declares that the Art. 21 and Art. 14 of the Constitution of India provides for the right to clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change as well and it is the duty of State to ensure this. This clearly depicts that conservation of environment is the need of the hour and the mankind cannot turn a deaf ear to the menace cause by the human activities. 

The court while addressing the issue recalled its previous order of banning the overhead transmission lines and put emphasis on the use for the renewable energy and evading coal-based fuels. It is clear that climate change and loss of biodiversity cannot be averted but steps can be taken to at least minimize the effects in the long run. 

The Precautionary Principle though established yet requires a reconsideration as it leads to hollow decisions which eventually detrimental to the environment. Further there is a need to strengthen the enforcement mechanism. The government needs to step in and inculcate stringent laws to determine the fault and the punishment of the offences against the environment and the loopholes pertaining in the existing laws must be eradicated. There must be incorporation of environmental considerations in developmental planning which could help the country to achieve its promises made on the international levels. 

Moreover, the judgement highlights the need for a more sustainable and comprehensive approach which prioritize the conservation of environment and leads to the economic, social ecological development of the country.

Name Saloni Sharma

College: Law College Dehradun