Case Commentary: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India

Petition Type: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019

Bench: Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), Hon’ble J.B. Pardiwala, and Hon’ble Manoj Misra Date of Judgment: April 19, 2024

1. Facts of the Case

The case revolves around the conservation of two critically endangered avian species: the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican. The petitioners, a group of environmentalists led by Mr. M.K. Ranjitsinh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the alarming decline in the population of these birds, primarily due to collisions with overhead power transmission lines in their natural habitats across Rajasthan and Gujarat. These regions, being arid and semi-arid, are also prime locations for the development of renewable energy projects, particularly solar and wind power, which require extensive networks of high-voltage transmission lines.

Responding to the PIL, the Supreme Court, in a significant order dated April 19, 2021, imposed a blanket restriction on the installation of overhead power lines in a vast territory identified as the “priority and potential habitat” of the GIB. The Court directed that all future power lines in this area be laid underground and existing lines be converted to underground lines within a year.

The present judgment arises from a series of applications filed by the Union of India and various solar power producers seeking a modification of this 2021 order. The government argued that the blanket order was practically unfeasible, prohibitively expensive, and was significantly hampering India’s national and international commitments to augment its renewable energy capacity to combat climate change. The core of the matter, therefore, transformed from a straightforward conservation issue into a complex adjudication between the immediate survival of a species and the long-term goal of promoting green energy.

2. Issues Raised

The Supreme Court in its 2024 judgment grappled with the following primary issues:

Whether the blanket order from April 2021, mandating the undergrounding of all power lines in the GIB’s habitat, was justifiable and practically implementable.
How to balance the constitutional duty to protect an endangered species with the state’s imperative to promote renewable energy as a tool to combat the larger threat of climate change.
Whether the fundamental rights to life and equality under Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India encompass a distinct, justiciable right to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change.

3. Contentions of the Parties

a) Contentions of the Petitioners (Conservationists):

The petitioners vehemently opposed any dilution of the 2021 order. Their primary contention was that the Great Indian Bustard is on the verge of extinction, with a population of less than 150 individuals remaining. They argued that this critical situation demanded an uncompromising approach to conservation. The petitioners emphasized that the State has a non-negotiable duty under Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution to protect wildlife. They submitted expert reports indicating that overhead power lines are the single largest cause of mortality for the GIB. They argued that the cost and technical difficulty of undergrounding power lines could not be a valid reason to sacrifice a critically endangered species, framing its extinction as an irreversible loss that outweighs any financial considerations. The petitioners also suggested that alternatives like installing bird flight diverters were not as effective as undergrounding and should only be a supplementary, not a primary, solution.

b) Contentions of the Respondents (Union of India & Power Producers):

The Union of India, supported by renewable energy firms, presented a multi-faceted argument for modifying the 2021 order. Their central contention was that the issue was not a simple binary of ‘development versus environment’ but a complex conflict between two environmental goods: the conservation of the GIB and the promotion of solar energy to mitigate climate change. They argued that a blanket order to underground all lines across thousands of square kilometres was technologically challenging and financially crippling, potentially derailing India’s goal of achieving 500 GW of non-fossil fuel energy capacity by 2030, a key commitment under the Paris Agreement. They highlighted that hampering solar energy production would force a greater reliance on fossil fuels, exacerbating the very climate change that threatens ecosystems globally. The respondents proposed a more targeted approach: mandating undergrounding only in identified “critical” or “priority” habitats while using effective bird diverters in the larger “potential” habitats. This, they argued, would strike a pragmatic and sustainable balance between the two competing environmental objectives.

4. Rationale of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a nuanced and forward-looking judgment that attempted to reconcile these conflicting interests.

Firstly, on the immediate issue of the GIB, the Court acknowledged the practical difficulties and national interest arguments presented by the Union of India. It agreed that its previous blanket order was perhaps too broad and needed recalibration. The Court thus modified its 2021 directive, dissolving the blanket ban. It constituted a new Expert Committee tasked with identifying the actual priority areas where the GIB population is most concentrated and its flight paths are most frequent. In these designated “priority areas,” the mandate for undergrounding power lines would remain. In the larger “potential areas,” the Court permitted the installation of overhead lines, provided they are fitted with high-quality bird flight diverters, with their efficacy to be monitored by the committee. This approach was hailed by the Court as a “balanced” solution that protects the GIB where it is most vulnerable, without crippling the nation’s renewable energy ambitions.

Secondly, and most significantly, the judgment went far beyond the specifics of the case to articulate a new fundamental right. The Court declared that the right against the adverse effects of climate change is a distinct right, implicit in the fundamental rights to life (Article 21) and equality (Article 14). The rationale for this groundbreaking pronouncement was built on several pillars:

Interconnection of Rights: The Court observed that climate change impacts the right to life by causing health crises, food shortages, and displacement, and affects the right to equality by disproportionately harming marginalized communities.
Constitutional Duty: The state’s duties under Articles 48A and 51A(g) to protect the environment must be read in the context of the global climate crisis.
Judicial Precedent: It drew upon a rich lineage of Indian environmental jurisprudence, including cases like M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, which established the public trust doctrine, and the recognition of the right to a healthy environment as part of Article 21.
International Law: The Court underscored India’s commitments under international treaties like the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), stating that domestic law must be interpreted in harmony with these international obligations.

By establishing this right, the Court provided a robust constitutional basis for future climate litigation and policy-making.

5. Defects of Law

While the judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh is being lauded as a landmark, it is not without its potential defects and areas of concern.

Dilution of Conservation Mandate: From a strict conservationist viewpoint, the judgment represents a retreat from the Court’s previous uncompromising stance. By accepting the government’s cost and feasibility arguments, the Court has prioritized energy infrastructure over the absolute protection of a species on the brink. The survival of the GIB is now contingent on the efficacy of bird diverters in “potential” areas and the diligence of an executive-appointed committee in identifying “priority” areas. This shift from a judicially enforced blanket ban to a committee-driven, calibrated approach could be seen as weakening the protective shield around the GIB.
The Challenge of Justiciability and Enforcement: The declaration of a “right against the adverse effects of climate change” is jurisprudentially monumental, but it raises profound questions of justiciability. Climate change is a diffuse, global problem with complex causal chains. How will a court determine if a specific project or policy violates this right? What are the standards of proof? The judgment does not lay down a clear framework for its enforcement, leaving the right powerful in principle but potentially toothless in practice. It risks becoming a “paper tiger,” a noble declaration without a clear remedial structure.
Judicial Overreach vs. Judicial Necessity: The articulation of a new fundamental right, while rooted in existing articles, can be criticized as an act of judicial legislation that encroaches upon the domain of the legislature. Critics may argue that it is the role of Parliament to create such a specific right through statute. However, proponents would counter that in the face of legislative and executive inertia on a critical issue like climate change, the judiciary has a constitutional duty to innovate and interpret fundamental rights dynamically to meet contemporary challenges.
Delegation to Expert Committees: The reliance on an expert committee to make the crucial determination of “priority areas” effectively delegates the core judicial function to a technical body. While expertise is necessary, the functioning of such committees can lack the transparency and adversarial rigour of a judicial process, and their recommendations can be subject to executive influence.

6. Inference

The judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India is a seminal moment in Indian constitutional and environmental law. It epitomizes the evolution of judicial thought from a simplistic ‘environment vs. development’ paradigm to a more sophisticated balancing of competing environmental interests.

On one hand, the decision reflects a pragmatic judicial acknowledgment of the complexities of governance, national policy, and the practical limits of court orders. On the other, it takes a radical leap forward by constitutionalizing the fight against climate change, providing citizens with a new and potent legal tool to demand state accountability.

The ultimate legacy of this judgment will be twofold. Its immediate impact on the survival of the Great Indian Bustard is now tied to the effective and honest implementation of the committee’s work and the efficacy of bird diverters. Its long-term impact, however, lies in its potential to fundamentally reshape climate change litigation and governance in India. It places a constitutional check on policies that are detrimental to the climate and empowers courts to scrutinize state action (and inaction) through a climate-conscious lens.

While challenges regarding its justiciability and enforcement remain, the judgment serves as a powerful constitutional signal. It affirms the Supreme Court’s role as a vanguard in protecting fundamental rights and positions India’s judiciary at the forefront of the global legal response to the planet’s most pressing existential threat.

Reference