CASE COMMENTARY
Petitioner: M K Ranjitsinh
Respondent: Union of India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 838/2019
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570
Quorum: Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J. and J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.
Decided on: 21.03.2024
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case revolves on the backdrop of the formerly filed writ petition (W.P. (C) 838/2019) was filed to protect two endangered bird species: the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican. The petition highlighted that overhead power lines were killing these birds upon collision. The petitioners sought interim measures, including predator-proof fencing, controlled grazing, and a halt to the installation of new power lines, windmills, and solar infrastructure in key habitats identified by the Wildlife Institute of India. They also requested that diverters be installed on existing power lines to reduce bird deaths. In response, an Expert Committee was formed to assess the situation.
The current case revolves around a petition(IA No 149293 of 2021) filed by the respondents seeking to modify the Supreme Court’s directions from April 19, 2021.They cited technical difficulties, high costs, and India’s commitments to expanding renewable energy as reasons for the modification. They argued that a blanket ban on power line installation would be impractical and would not effectively conserve the Great Indian Bustard. Hence, the instant writ petition.
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?
- Whether India’s international commitments align with right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change?
- Whether the blanket directions issued by the court were necessary and appropriate for addressing the issues related to the Great Indian Bustard and renewable energy development?
CONTENTION
- ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONERS
- The petitioners sought urgent measures for the protection and recovery of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican.
- Specific directions were requested from the court, including the implementation of an emergency response plan, installation of bird diverters, halting new projects and renewals in critical habitats, dismantling existing power lines, predator-proof enclosures, population control programs for dogs, and habitat conservation policies.
- Declare GIB and Lesser Florican as one meta population, with all state authorities cooperating for conservation.
- Additionally, the petitioner requested the appointment of an Empowered Committee to oversee conservation efforts and a declaration of the two endangered birds as a national priority.
- ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS
- Respondent Nos 1, 3, and 4, including the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, sought modification of the court’s directions.
- They argued that the judgment’s implications on the power sector and energy transition were vast, and certain considerations were overlooked, such as India’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement for reducing emissions and transitioning to renewable energy.
- They highlighted the difficulty in implementing directions for laying high voltage lines underground.
- Respondents highlighted technical challenges in implementing underground power lines, the importance of renewable energy for India’s climate commitments, and ongoing conservation efforts for the GIB through various programs and collaborations.
- They contended that a blanket direction imposed by the court, while well-intentioned, might not be feasible or effective in achieving the conservation goals for the GIB.
RATIONALE
- India’s Commitment Under International Conventions
The Court recognized that, to achieve sustainability goals, India has made significant international commitments to combat climate change, including participation in the Kyoto Protocol. India’s commitment under the Paris Agreement includes transitioning to non-fossil fuel sources and reducing emissions. It has set ambitious targets for renewable energy capacity installation, aiming for 450 GW by 2030. India’s efforts towards sustainability involve various policy measures and initiatives to promote renewable energy investment and adoption, recognizing it as crucial for environmental preservation, energy security, and socio-economic development.
- The Right to a Healthy Environment and the Right to Be Free From the Adverse Effects of Climate Change
The Court took note of the catena of decisions like 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 wherein Articles 48A and 51A (g) must be interpreted in light of Article 21 which recognises the importance of the natural world. The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change.
Therefore, the Court proposed modification of its 19th April 2021 order and emphasized the need for expert consultation in environmental policy matters, urging caution in issuing sweeping directives without evidence. It recalled the blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines, advocating for an expert committee to balance GIB preservation and sustainable development. The court suggests modifying the order to involve domain experts in assessing the feasibility of undergrounding power lines, ensuring nuanced decision-making aligned with conservation goals and regional characteristics.
DEFECTS OF LAW
The judgment, while progressive in nature, reveals certain shortcomings. Environmental policy matters could benefit from expert committee input to ensure informed decision-making. Without sufficient evidence, caution is warranted in issuing broad directives. The removal of the blanket direction for undergrounding power lines, ostensibly for GIB protection, may reflect a shift away from the core issue. In the drive to attain sustainable development with conservation goals, ultimately, the ruling appears to prioritize cost-efficiency and government claims of technical feasibility over urgent concerns regarding climate and biodiversity decline.
INFERENCE
“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.” The Court’s judgment represents a significant milestone in recognizing the imperative to address adverse climate change as a fundamental right under Article 21, thereby laying the groundwork for a more sustainable future. It has adopted a holistic approach, delicately balancing the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) with broader environmental preservation efforts to avoid compromising either goal.
The Court acknowledges the urgent need to protect the Great Indian Bustard, recognizing its status as a critically endangered species. However, it also acknowledges the broader environmental challenges, including climate change, and the necessity of transitioning towards cleaner energy sources like solar power to mitigate these challenges. The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence-based decision-making and the involvement of domain experts in crafting solutions that balance conservation efforts with sustainable development goals.
In essence, the judgment sends a powerful message about the necessity of balancing conservation imperatives with the urgent need for sustainable development in the face of climate change.
Name: Nikita Susan Eapen
College: JSS Law College (Autonomous), Mysuru, Karnataka