Author: Neha, UILS, Panjab University

BRIEF OVERVIEW

On March 21, 2024, a judgment related to climate change was delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of M. K. Ranjithsinh & ors. v/s Union of India, acknowledging a new right to protection from the negative impacts of  climate change. The ruling came in a writ petition filed by a retired government official and conservationist M. K. Ranjithsinh, seeking protection for the Great India Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, which are on the verge of extinction. The GIB is a large-sized bird found in the dry regions, particularly in the state of Rajasthan and Gujarat. The population is becoming extinct due to pollution, climate change, habitat loss, etc. the major contributing factor is the overhead transmission lines, owing to death by collision with power. Hence, the petition was filed to direct the respondents for framing and implementing a plan for the protection and recovery of the GIB. In this judgment the court has expanded the scope of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and established a strong foundation for human rights concerning climate change in India.

PARTIES INVOLVED-

 Petitioner:  M. K. Ranjithsinh, an environmentalist and wildlife conservationist.

 Respondent:  Union of India, representing the Central Government.

FACTS-

The case resulted from the filling of a writ petition under Article 32 of the India Constitution. The petitioner requested the SC to direct the Union of India to prepare and implement effective policies to act against climate change and protect the endangered species of the GIB which is on the verge of extinction due to various factors such as pollution, low reproduction rate and climate change. One of the major contributing factors is overhead cables. The Power Lines Mitigation Report 2018 has stated that approx 1 lakh birds died due to collision with power lines. The GIBs have poor vision due to their massive size which leads to collision with transmission lines. The Rajasthan Government reckoned that only about 125 GIBs were present in the year 2013. Thus, the petitioner asked the court to stop permits for building more windmills and solar panels in the key areas identified by the Indian Wildlife Institute, to help prevent endangered species from disappearing completely. The Supreme Court on 19^th April 2021 directed to limit the construction of overhead transmission lines in an area roughly covering an area of 99,000 sq. km. and ordered to transform overhead power lines into underground power lines in areas of GIBs. In response to the requests by several respondent ministries for revision of this verdict Chief Justice Chandrachud’s bench of the Supreme Court of India began reviewing India’s commitment to reduce the adverse effects of climate change and its obligations under the Paris Agreement. The bench highlighted that India's ambitious renewable energy goals are key to fighting climate change. Moving away from fossil fuels is not only a matter of energy strategy but is also vital for protecting the environment.

ISSUES RAISED-

What concrete measure should be adopted by the Union Government, the state of Gujarat and Rajasthan, and the court appointed committee to reconcile-

• The urgent need to prevent the extinction of the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican, and

• India’s obligation to develop solar power to meet International commitments?

IMPORTANCE-

The issues raised are very important because it is the constitutional obligation of the state to protect endangered species under Article 48A and Article 51A(g). It is necessary to balance wildlife conservation with infrastructural development, especially concerning power transmission.

The court held that immediate action is necessary to protect Great Indian Bustards (GIBs). Therefore, power line diverters should be installed, and a study should assess if burying power lines underground is possible before new overhead lines are built. If it is concluded that underground transmission cables are not feasible then divertors should be an option. The court further suggested some more options to mobilize financial resources such as carrying up section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 which builds a social responsibility on a certain amount of net worth or applying section 166(2) of the same act which needs a company’s director to take decision in good faith and in the interests of business, environment and its employees. Also, National and State authorities have substantial funds because of the Compensatory Afforestation Funds Act, 2016 and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the act states that the funds should be used to protect wildlife from harm. Additionally, petitioners stated that a fund established by the State of Rajasthan (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority) has received a sum of Rs.47,436 crores out of Rs.54,685 crores.

The Supreme Court has given the decision on the basis of -

• India’s commitment under international conventions- The court recognized that India has made international promises to fight climate change, like those in the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement. One promise is to get about 50% of its electricity from non-fossil fuels by 2030.

• The right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change- the court mentioned in the light of previous decisions in M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, and Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group that climate change threatens our right to a clean environment, which is part Article – 21 (Right to life). It also violates our Article-14 (Right to equality) because climate change impacts some people more severely.

• The court emphasized that sustainable development must account for the preservation of endangered species, applying the principle of proportionality to balance ecological concerns with infrastructural needs.

STATUES-

• Article 14- Right to Equality

• Article 21-Right to life and personal liberty

• Article 32- constitutional remedies to seek jurisdiction and file writs to enforce fundamental rights.

• Article 48A and 51A(g)- both state and citizens have a duty to protect natural environments like forests, lakes, etc.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

This case represents a watershed moment for establishing a precedent for proactive species conservation and introducing the concept of just transition in Indian environmental jurisprudence. It strengthens the legal duty to protect the environment and offers realistic ways for building new things. This decision shows that the courts are serious about protecting India's nature by taking practical steps. It could lead to stringent environmental rules to fight climate change. Also, it might encourage people and groups to take legal action against those who harm the environment, claiming their right to a healthy environment. It could also make people more aware of environmental problems and encourage them to get involved in fixing them. 

The Great Indian Bustard is one of the largest birds in the world. This beautiful bird should be protected by us, especially when it is on the verge of extinction. The Supreme Court of India took into consideration the arguments of both sides and took the most appropriate decision. The Court understood that saving GIB is very much important but at the same time also realized completely grounding all power lines might be too difficult. So, they compromised to find a solution that works for everyone and also protects GIBs.

 Also, recalling the temporary order was right because it wouldn't have helped save the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The GIB is endangered for several reasons, like their population being split up, usually laying only one egg that hatches quickly in a month, and eggs getting crushed by animals. The Court suggested better protection methods like breeding centers and planting native grasses.

In today’s era, there must be a balance between nature and progress. This requires creation of more environmental laws with measurable goals which would give strict punishments to those who break the rules and also make sure that society is following environmental rules.

The judgment is innovative but has some flaws. Expert advice should be taken to improve environmental policies and ensure smart choices. Removing the rule to bury power lines which was supposed to protect the GIB, may focus on change. Even though they are aiming for sustainable development and conservation, more focus seems to be on value rather than urgent climate and biodiversity problems.

The crucial decision taken by the Supreme Court of India stands as a landmark judgment in environmental law, showing the judiciary's role in wildlife conservation.  For the first time in the history of Indian law, it has acknowledged that people have the right to be protected from the harmful effects of climate change. The Court has balanced the protection of endangered species with the need to fight climate change. The directive for implementation monitoring and regular progress reports ensures continued attention to this critical conservation issue, making this judgment not merely declaratory but practically enforceable.