M.K. RANJITSINH vs UNION OF INDIA, 2024
Case Title and Citation: M.K. RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA 2024 INSC 280 (21 March 2024)
Factual Background
The Great Indian Bustard (GIB), an avian species found primarily in the arid and grassland regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat, is classified as ‘critically endangered’ due to a rapid decline in its population. A significant cause contributing to this decline is collision with overhead electricity transmission wires. In 2019, a writ petition was filed under Article 32 seeking conservation guidelines. On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court issued an interim order that imposed restrictions on the installation of overhead transmission lines across a large region, estimated to be about 99,000 square kilometers. This 2021 order mandated that future power lines in GIB habitats be laid underground, and existing overhead lines in priority areas be converted to underground lines, with the immediate installation of bird diverters. Subsequently, the Union Government (through the Ministries of Environment, Power, and New and Renewable Energy) sought modification of these directions, arguing that the blanket restriction had vast adverse implications for the power sector, renewable energy goals, and India’s international commitments under agreements like the Paris Agreement.
Issue(s)
- Whether the blanket prohibition imposed by the earlier interim order on overhead transmission lines across approximately 99,000 square kilometers required modification due to technical and economic infeasibility.
- Whether a balanced legal approach is necessary to ensure the non-negotiable protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard while also allowing for the sustainable development of renewable energy crucial for addressing climate change and fulfilling India’s constitutional obligations.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court overturned the earlier interim order dated 19 April 2021, holding that there was no valid basis for a blanket prohibition on solar power transmission lines across the vast 99,000 square kilometer area. Instead of maintaining the sweeping judicial mandate, the Court constituted a new Expert Committee. This Committee was given a broad mandate to assess the specific scope and feasibility of overhead versus underground electric lines in the GIB’s priority areas, thereby balancing conservation with sustainable development.
Reason for the decision
- Constitutional Recognition of Climate Rights: The Court recognized the right to a healthy environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as constitutional rights emanating from Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). Furthermore, the Court held that judicial decisions must consider India’s international obligations, such as the commitments made under the Paris Agreement to achieve approximately 50 percent of cumulative electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.
- Technical and Financial Impracticality: The Court noted that converting all high-voltage transmission lines, particularly those above 60kV, to underground cables across such a vast area is technically impractical and would pose safety risks. Laying underground cables is significantly more costly, running four to five times higher than overhead lines, which would render the harnessing of renewable energy prohibitively expensive. Moreover, underground lines in desert regions face practical difficulties as shifting sands can obscure flag markings, making detection of faults unsafe and time-consuming.
- Need for Balanced Policy: A blanket prohibition, while intended for GIB protection, would severely impede the rapid development of solar and wind energy in Rajasthan and Gujarat—regions with the highest potential. The inability to tap this renewable energy would necessitate reliance on coal-fired power, leading to estimated emissions of 623 billion kg of carbon dioxide. This outcome would directly conflict with the broader environmental goals of climate change mitigation and violate the constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Court concluded that determining environmental policy and specific line placements is a matter best left to domain experts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court modified its earlier restrictive order, shifting the focus from a blanket judicial ban to a policy-driven, expert-led solution. The decision affirmed the critical necessity of GIB protection while integrating it with the equally pressing need to meet India’s climate commitments and uphold the constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. The newly appointed Expert Committee is tasked with balancing these two goals and submitting a report by July 31, 2024, detailing sustainable and feasible measures for power transmission and conservation efforts.
