INTRODUCTION
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE
This specific case of M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark judgment
in the Indian environmental law. The Supreme Court’s judgment in this provided the importance
that wildlife conservation and how the protection of endangered species is of great
acknowledgement. India is home to many flora and fauna including endangered species such a
ruling was required. Creating a precedence for future cases.
In my opinion, environmental conservation and wildlife protection are necessary in today’s
developing day and age, as we humans aim for a utopia we disregard the environment which is
something that helps us survive by giving us the necessities needed for the survival of all. This is
done by ignoring the vast amount of pollutants being released by the factories, vehicles, etc but
mainly by destroying the forests which are home to the flora and fauna. This specific case deals
with the same by showcasing how the judiciary can influence environmental policy. With that
creating a precedent that marks the case of the most importance. By doing a case comment on
this, I strive to gain insights into the legal framework and judicial interventions that can
effectively address these pursuing issues.
FACTS OF THE CASE
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud had looked
after the case. The petitioners, led by M.K. Ranjitsinh, had filed a Writ petition under Article 32
of the Indian constitution 1 , seeking the enforcement of the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972. Arguing how the state and central governments did not take appropriate measures to
1 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
safeguard the endangered species and their environment. Mainly this was filled in order to
safeguard the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). This magnificent bird is critically endangered and is
now only found in a few arid regions of Rajasthan and Gujrat. Among the various reasons for
their endangerment lay the reason of overhead transmission lines. Further to the power line
mitigation, a 2018 report mentioned that approximately 1 lakh birds die each year by colliding
with the overhead power lines and many Great Indian Bustards too. This happens due to the
bustards’ lack of frontal vision. 2 Thus, The petitioners proposed to the state governments of
Gujrat and Rajasthan that they install predator-proof fencing to protect their eggs and not permit
the installation of overhead power lines as well as not permit further construction of windmills
and installation of solar infrastructure in priority 3 .
ISSUES RAISED
The case raised quite a bit of issues but some of the most appropriate and of the utmost
importance were:
- Adequate Measures: Whether or not the current measures employed by the government
to protect the Great Indian Bustard were enough and effective. - Additional Measures: Running in line with the previous issue, this questions whether or
not additional measures should have been taken for the protection of the endangered
species of the Great Indian Bustard. - India’s Commitment: With regard to the commitment made by India to climate change
control, the court had to decide between the preservation of the Great Indian Bustard and
the conversion to renewable energy from fossil fuels.
RELEVANT LAWS & PRINCIPLES
This case had several laws and principles in place which were:
2 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
3 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
- Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India 4 . - Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law 5 . - Article 32: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law 6 . - Writ Petition: A writ petition is an act or command by a superior court to the lower courts
or court to stop something or tell to do something that is not being done. This is a sort of
a way to help in the functioning. - Article 48 A: The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country 7 . - Article 51 A (g): It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, and to have compassion
for living creatures 8 . - The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, of 1972 provides a
legal framework for the protection of various species of wild animals and plants,
management of their habitats, regulation, and control of trade in wild animals, plants, and
products made from them 9 .
4 INDIA CONST. art. 14
5 INDIA CONST. art. 21
6 INDIA CONST. art. 32
7 INDIA CONST. art. 48A
8 INDIA CONST. art. 51A(g)
9 Drishti IAS (2023) Wildlife protection act, 1972, Drishti IAS. Available at:
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/wildlife-protection-act- - The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: An act implemented for the protection and
improvement of the environment and anything connected therewith 10 . - The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: An Act to provide for the establishment of a
National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to
environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources
including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and
compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith
or incidental thereto 11 .
CONTENTION
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONERS
The petitioners led by Ranjitsinh, put forth the argument that the government had slacked off and
failed to protect the Great Indian Bustard, as given in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Mentioning points like the failed attempt at conservation measures and the prevention of their
habitat destruction. The petitioners requested the intervention of the court in this matter so that
stricter measures could be put in place by giving direct orders to the government. The petitioner’s
inadequacies of the current efforts were highlighted by them, as they mention the points of the
ongoing habitat destruction due to the infrastructure development projects which include the
wind turbines and power lines that are of great threat to the Great Indian Bustard. All of this is
1972#:~:txt=The%20Wild%20Life%20(Protection)%20Act,and%20products%20made%20from
%20them (Accessed: 18 July 2024).
10 The Environment Protection Act ,1986. Available at:
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/6196/1/the_environment_protection_act,1986
.pdf (Accessed: 18 July 2024).
11 National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Available at:
https://greentribunal.gov.in/sites/default/files/act_rules/National_Green_Tribunal_Act,_2010.pdf
(Accessed: 18 July 2024).
leading to a decline in the bird’s number. Thus they presented their plan and directions for the
governments to make sure the methods are more effective this time around. 12
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents were the governments in this case and had mentioned that they had taken quite
many measures to protect the Great Indian Bustard. They had placed measures such as creating
sanctuaries and the implementation of conservation projects too. To counter what the petitioners
had argued they mentioned the points where the Great Indian Bustard died of collision with the
lines and not by electrocution. It was presented that the conversion of all the overhead
transmission lines into underground transmission lines is not feasible at all as many technicalities
are involved in taking such a step, many safety issues come up with doing so plus how a large
amount of transmission loss is involved, further taking such measures increases the workload on
the workers and even finding the issues with the lines when underground is a task, they are
unable to gain land as the acquisition of it is not covered under the electricity act, the method
being asked to conduct is not cost friendly, may lead to increased numbers of forest fires further
leading to a loss of habitat and life as well, and finally the area within which the undergrounding
of cables is to be done is too large and will lead to the technical infeasibility of undergrounding
60 kv lines. 13
RATIONALE
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court’s judgment landed in favour of the petitioners led by Ranjitsinh. The court
had directed specific orders toward the state as well as the central government to implement
conservation methods within the 99,000 Sq. Km of habitat that was prescribed. These orders
mentioned the steps to be taken which were to create conservation reserves, allocate necessary
resources for wildlife protection, protect areas for the prevention of the destruction of the Great
Indian Bustards eggs, and install bird diverters 14 . These bird diverters came in after it was noted
12 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
13 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
14 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
that the installation of the underground lines was a tedious process and would come with certain
setbacks. Although lines for the solar power panels had not been restricted. However, the court
gave orders after looking at all the reasons by the respondents that wherever it is possible
overhead lines must be converted to underground lines within a year’s time.
As India has been committed to combatting climate change on the global level due to its signing
of many such protocols, it was a great move to make as they believed it would only lead to a
contribution to those protocols by promoting renewable energy over fossil fuel by disallowing
the overhead lines.
The Court in its ruling duly took note of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which
state that all persons shall have equality before the law and the equal protection of laws and the
right to life and personal liberty respectively. These articles played a crucial role as they provide
the right to a clean environment and the right against adverse effects of climate change.
However, these two articles were not all that were important, and further Article 48A of the
Indian Constitution provides that the state shall duly protect and improve the environment and
will also safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Lastly, Article 51A (g) mentions that
every citizen of India is to protect and improve the environment. All of these articles of the
Constitution greatly helped the court make the decision. It did not end at this as the Court
specifically ordered the creation of an expert committee whose purpose is to look after the
implementation of the underground lines in certain areas, its feasibility, preventing the poaching
of species within the prescribed area, looking at how climate change affects the Great Indian
Bustards, etc 15 .
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court based its judgment on several key factors before passing the judgment on
this case. Their reasoning is quite remarkable as they base it mainly on the failure of the proper
implementation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, of 1972. The act led to a few implementations
but they rendered ineffective as the decline of the endangered species continued to take place.
The court looking at the number of international protocols India was involved in decided to help
by trying to focus on renewable energy rather than allowing the implementation of the overhead
15 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
line 16 s. Not only this but the court took into account case precedents as well, they referred to
previous judgments that underscored the importance of environmental protection, some of which
were M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath: Reiterated the Public Trust Doctrine, showcasing the
government duty to protect natural resources, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India:
Highlighting the importance of forest conservation and the need for proactive measures to
protect biodiversity.
DEFECTS OF THE LAW & CONCLUSION
DEFECTS OF THE LAW
Laid Back Implementation
Great legal frameworks have been implemented by the government amongst which lay the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. These acts were
meant for the protection of the endangered species, their habitats, etc, but due to the lack of
implementation, those species suffered. Such is the Great Indian Bustard, If the implementation
had been successful petitioners like Ranjitsinh would never have come up. This gap between the
legislation and its practical application showcases how gruesome it can be.
Lack of Details
The laws currently in place do mention the conservation measures, they do have a law for this
but without the details, it creates varying interpretations among all. For example not mentioning
the points of having underground power lines and creating predator-proof fencing which were
added on.
Lack of Funding
These laws and acts were created along with certain committees too but they all lack the funding
required to carry out the work needed. For example, the undergrounding of the power lines was
16 M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2024
stopped for many reasons but among them was the reason that it was a costly operation, and thus
the funding fell short. Due to this certain goals and requirements are not fulfilled properly.
Need for Monitoring
The legal framework has many mechanisms for monitoring each and everything, but these acts
still seem to lack them. As is evident due to the lack of monitoring the acts and needs were going
unchecked. This may change now due to the implementation of the new expert committee
initiated by the Supreme Court of India.
CONCLUSION
This case of M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. is a landmark one in the line of
Indian environmental jurisprudence, that shows the citizens how the country’s legal systems for
environmental protection lack in certain ways while also strengthening it. The Supreme Court
took a bold stance in this case by safeguarding the endangered species of The Great Indian
Bustard. While it does that, it showcases the gaps within the legislation and implementation of
certain acts meant for protection.
Personally, this case has developed my understanding of the legal framework of environmental
protection laws. It also shows me how the Supreme Court makes a difficult choice while being
stuck between two things that are of the utmost importance. It creates a landmark by reinforcing
the importance of articles like 14,21, 48A, and 51A(g) that will create a precedent for future
cases. As I mentioned earlier within the utopia that we humans chase, we stop thinking about the
environment, but this case and the court’s decisions change that as they choose the protection of
the ecology while supporting the climate change goals.
Nonetheless, only time will tell this case’s effectiveness as we learn about how many of the court
orders were executed, how well the governments of Gujrat and Rajasthan as well Central
government responded to this, and finally, if the expert committee functions properly or not.
ARMAAN ARORA
O.P. JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY