Introduction

In the landmark case of M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024 INSC 280), the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical intersection between biodiversity conservation and the nation’s renewable energy ambitions. The petitioners sought urgent court directives to protect the endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, both on the brink of extinction, amidst the expansion of solar and wind energy infrastructure. This commentary delves into the case’s background, the court’s judgment, underlying legal principles, and its far-reaching implications.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, presided over by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, examined the writ petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 alongside Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022. The core issue revolved around the protection of the GIB and the balancing act between conserving wildlife and advancing renewable energy projects.

The Court had previously, in an order dated April 19, 2021, restricted the setup of overhead transmission lines in areas critical to the GIB by mandating their conversion to underground lines. However, responding to substantial challenges and practical feasibility issues, the Court in this judgment modified its earlier directives. It acknowledged the multifaceted threats to the GIB population and the national imperative to transition to renewable energy, particularly solar power. Consequently, an Expert Committee was constituted to assess the feasibility of undergrounding transmission lines and to formulate balanced conservation strategies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several pivotal cases that shape the legal landscape regarding environmental protection and human rights:

• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (2000): Established that environmental provisions in the Constitution must be interpreted in light of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21.
• Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana (1995): Recognized the right to a clean environment as integral to the right to life under Article 21.
• State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation (2019): Affirmed state obligations under human rights to take decisive action against climate change.
• Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K Chopra (1999): Emphasized the importance of adhering to international conventions in domestic law interpretations.

These precedents collectively reinforce the judiciary's role in environmental stewardship and upholding human rights in the context of climate change.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning pivoted around interpreting constitutional mandates, international obligations, and the practical feasibility of enforcing environmental directives. Key aspects include:

• Constitutional Provisions: Articles 14, 21, 48A, and 51A(g) were central in framing the legal right to a healthy environment and the state's duty to protect wildlife.
• International Commitments: India's obligations under the Paris Agreement and other international conventions were highlighted, underscoring the need to align domestic policies with global climate goals.
• Feasibility Concerns: The Court recognized the technical and economic impracticalities of converting extensive overhead transmission lines to underground ones, considering factors like cost, safety, and efficiency.
• Balancing Interests: A nuanced approach was advocated to harmonize wildlife conservation with the imperative to expand renewable energy infrastructure, avoiding a binary choice between the two.
• Expert Consultation: Emphasized the necessity of relying on domain experts to inform judicial decisions on complex environmental and technical issues.

The Court concluded that a blanket directive to underground transmission lines was untenable and instead constituted an Expert Committee to devise viable, location-specific solutions.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in Indian environmental jurisprudence by:

• Reconciling Conservation and Development: Demonstrates that environmental protection and sustainable development are not mutually exclusive but can be synergistically integrated.
• Judicial Pragmatism: Highlights the judiciary's role in balancing broad environmental directives with practical implementation challenges, emphasizing evidence-based decision-making.
• Strengthening Environmental Governance: The formation of an Expert Committee institutionalizes a collaborative approach, potentially enhancing the effectiveness of conservation measures.
• Influence on Future Litigation: Provides a framework for addressing similar conflicts between environmental conservation and infrastructure development, encouraging holistic and informed judicial interventions.
• Policy Guidance: Offers actionable recommendations for policymakers to ensure that renewable energy expansion proceeds without compromising critical wildlife habitats.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. In environmental contexts, it has been interpreted to include the right to a healthy environment, as environmental degradation can threaten basic life and well-being.

Underground vs. Overhead Transmission Lines

Overhead Transmission Lines: These are electrical power lines that run above ground, often on poles or towers. They are easier and less expensive to install but can pose risks to wildlife, such as birds colliding with them.

Underground Transmission Lines: These lines are buried beneath the ground. They are more expensive and technically challenging to install, especially over large areas, but they minimize environmental disturbances and reduce the risk to wildlife.

Great Indian Bustard (GIB)

The GIB is a critically endangered bird species native to India, primarily found in the grasslands of Rajasthan and Gujarat. Its decline is attributed to habitat loss, poaching, and disturbances from infrastructure projects like power lines and wind turbines.

International Solar Alliance (ISA)

An international organization initiated by India and France, aiming to promote solar energy and facilitate investment in solar power across member countries to combat climate change.

Conclusion

The M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024 INSC 280) judgment marks a pivotal step in India's environmental jurisprudence, intricately balancing the urgent need to conserve a critically endangered species with the nation's renewable energy aspirations. By steering away from an all-encompassing directive and opting for an expert-driven, nuanced approach, the Court underscored the importance of pragmatism in judicial interventions. This decision not only fortifies the legal framework for environmental protection but also propels India towards a sustainable development trajectory that harmonizes ecological preservation with economic progress. As climate change continues to pose multifaceted challenges, this judgment serves as a beacon for future cases, advocating for informed, balanced, and expert-informed decision-making in the pursuit of environmental justice and sustainable growth.