Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India - Great Indian Bustard and Climate Change Case II

2024 INSC 280; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570

Citation
2024 INSC 280; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
21 Mar 2024
Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra, JJ.

Facts

  • The Union Government and renewable-energy stakeholders sought modification of the Supreme Court’s 2021 directions.
  • They argued that blanket undergrounding across extensive priority and potential areas was:
  • technically difficult;
  • extremely expensive;
  • unsafe or impracticable for certain high-voltage systems;
  • capable of obstructing renewable-energy development.
  • Rajasthan and Gujarat contain some of India’s strongest solar and wind resources.
  • Renewable-energy expansion was important for:
  • reducing greenhouse-gas emissions;
  • meeting climate commitments;
  • avoiding fossil-fuel dependence.
  • The Court therefore had to reconsider how its 2021 species-protection directions should operate alongside climate-mitigation needs.

Issue

  • Whether the 2021 blanket undergrounding directions should continue unchanged.
  • How the survival of the Great Indian Bustard should be balanced against renewable-energy development.
  • Whether protection from adverse climate-change effects forms part of constitutional rights.
  • What role experts should play in designing the final framework.

Rule

  • Articles 14 and 21 protect persons against serious and unequal effects of climate change.
  • Environmental protection includes both:
  • biodiversity conservation; and
  • mitigation of climate change.
  • Neither renewable energy nor species protection automatically overrides the other.
  • Proportionality and sustainable development require careful reconciliation of competing environmental interests.
  • Courts should use expert assistance where technical questions cannot be resolved through a single universal rule.

Application

  • The Court acknowledged that the Great Indian Bustard remained critically endangered and required urgent protection.
  • It did not withdraw from the principle that transmission infrastructure must avoid preventable bird deaths.
  • However, it found that the 2021 order had applied a broad uniform solution over very large areas.
  • Undergrounding every line could involve:
  • voltage and transmission constraints;
  • increased environmental disturbance from excavation;
  • technical unreliability;
  • delay in renewable-energy projects;
  • significant cost.
  • Renewable energy itself served an environmental purpose by reducing carbon emissions.
  • Climate change also threatens:
  • wildlife;
  • water;
  • agriculture;
  • health;
  • vulnerable communities.
  • The Court expressly connected protection against adverse climate effects with Articles 14 and 21.
  • Article 21 protects life and health, while Article 14 addresses unequal exposure of vulnerable groups to climate harm.
  • The Court therefore rejected a false choice between “birds” and “clean energy.”
  • It concluded that the conservation framework should depend upon:
  • location;
  • type of line;
  • voltage;
  • bird movement;
  • habitat sensitivity;
  • technical feasibility;
  • available alternatives.
  • A specialised expert committee was constituted to:
  • redefine priority habitat;
  • examine existing and proposed lines;
  • recommend undergrounding, rerouting or diverters;
  • assess renewable-energy implications;
  • design long-term conservation measures.
  • Until the committee completed its work, the broad restriction over potential areas was relaxed, while core priority protection continued.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court modified the blanket nature of its 2021 undergrounding directions.
  • It constituted an expert committee to design a scientifically and technically workable conservation framework.
  • The Court recognised a constitutional right against the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 14 and 21.
  • It held that:
  • species conservation remains mandatory;
  • renewable energy is also an environmental necessity;
  • both must be reconciled through evidence-based measures.
  • The decision did not finally determine every line or project.
  • It created the expert process that later produced the final directions issued on 19 December 2025.
  • The judgment is important for integrating climate rights with biodiversity conservation rather than treating them as isolated branches of environmental law.
  • Use this case for: constitutional climate rights and expert balancing of renewable energy with endangered-species protection.