CITATION: 2024 INSC 280 | 2024 SCC OnLine SC 570
BENCH: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.
JUDGEMENT: 21 March 2024
INTRODUCTION
The decision enforced in the M.K Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India case represents a landmark development in the constitution of India and its environmental jurisprudence. The litigation initially was concerned by the protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), this case evolved to a broader constitutional examination of relationships between biodiversity conversion, renewable energy expansion and climate justice. The Supreme court was required to conciliate two pressing public interest which were the need to protect endangered avian species in India and the national commitment in the expansion of renewable energy generation in quest of climate change mitigation. This landmark ruling stands out as it went beyond the traditional interpretation of environmental protection as simply maintaining natural resources. On the contrary, the Court appreciated the fact that climate change engendered risk to the enjoyment of constitutional rights. Thus explicitly, the Court held that the right to freedom from the impacts of climate change was part of the guarantee under articles 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution. In such a way, India became one of the countries where the constitutional right to enjoy freedoms and liberties has been expanded to include climate protection rights. The court broke from the absolute conversationalist stance which had been employed in its previous orders regarding underground transmission lines. Recognizing the reality of scientific, technological and economic considerations , the court held that environmental governance need to take into consideration the principle of sustainable development rather than an absolutist stance on environmental objectives, thus the court directed that any conversation would be undertaken through expert evaluation and the balance between wildlife and renewable energy obligations of the country. This case comment will critically analyze the facts of the case, the issues, legal arguments and principles enunciated by the supreme court.it further looks at the effect of the judgement on environmental law, climate governance, wildlife conversation and the constitutional rights to a healthy environment. The judgement ensures that saving biodiversity and using energy are not against each other as they are both important for development and governance.
Facts of the case
The Great Indian Bustard issue started with a court case which was first filed as a public interest litigation filed under article 32 of the Indian Constitution by people who cared about the environment and this included M.K Ranjitsinh. They required the court to protect the Great India Bustard and the Lesser Florican as both were listed under the Wildlife protection of 1972 and were also amongst one of the endangered bird species in India. One of the significant concerns raised by petitioners was that the birds were dying as they flew into power lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat due to their limited frontal vision and heavy bodies. Scientific studies and reports presented before the Court showed it a sone of the reason leading to the extinction of this species. On 19 April after the Court had into consideration the gravity of the issue, it held that power lines which were in areas where the Great Indian Bustard lived should be converted underground and if it wasn’t possible birds divertors were to be installed to avoid collision. The Court held this decision as a mitigation measure to protect the environment and the animals that cohabit in it. The Union of India filed application seeking for modifications in the 2021 directions issued by the court. They contended that installation of powerlines underground in the desert was extremely hard and expensive and that Rajasthan and Gujarat had vast potential for wind energy which was very crucial for reducing climate change. The government worried that these installations would affect them in building solar and wind farms, which could hurt the country’s efforts pertaining to reducing climate change. The court had to decide on whether its earlier decision could work considering the country’s goals, science and technology, when it pertains to mitigating climate change and protecting the environment.
Issues before the court
- Whether the court’s ruling in 2021 of installation of powerlines underground required modification considering the subsequent technical, scientific and policy considerations.
- Whether conversation of Great Indian Bustard and expansion of renewable energy can be reconciled through principles of sustainable development instead of being treated as different constitutional objectives.
- Whether the vast effects of climate change could implicate the fundamental rights given under article 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution which would give rise to constitutional protected rights against the adverse effects of climate change.
- To what extent could courts rely on scientific expertise and executive policy when resolving complex environmental disputes that involve biodiversity conservation, climate governance and energy infrastructure.
- Measures that could be adopted to protect the Great Indian Bustard while facilitating Indias transition towards clean and renewable sources of energy.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners side
The petitioner claimed that the presence of overhead electricity transmission lines in the habitat of Great Indian Bustard was a critical danger concerning the survival of the species. Based on scientist research and opinions from experts they claimed that the poor frontal vision and the heavy body of the Great Indian Bustard made it difficult to not get killed when they collided with the overhead transmission lines thus having a high mortality rate. Taking into consideration that the species was already endangered, if no mitigation measures were taken it would lead to its extinction. They also stated that the court had constitutional and statutory rights and duty to protect endangered animals and ensure balance as they heavily relied on article 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution and the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The petitioner urged the court to uphold its decision in 2021 of installing transmission lines underground to protect species and avoid them becoming extinct.
Respondent Arguments
The Union of India along with other concerned bodies of the government requested for changes in the decision issued by the court in 2021 as they claimed that such requirements of underground installation of transmission lines were technologically unfeasible and very expensive especially when it came to high voltage electricity transmission lines. The respondents furthermore argued that Rajasthan and Gujarat which are the primary habitats of the Great Indian Bustard are also among the important regions of harnessing solar and wind energy. The installation of transmission lines underground could harm the efforts towards harnessing renewable energy resources which were important as it kept up with Indias climate obligations and reduced emissions of green house gases and ensured energy security. They argued that the conversation of environment cannot be judged purely in terms of protection of the species alone but also requires to keep in mind the pressing need to combat climate change. The respondent therefore brought forward an idea of adopting a scientific approach to the problem which would include fitting the bird divertors in the transmission lines and conducting regular monitoring of transmission lines. They argued that these measures could protect the Great Indian Bustard while ensuring Continued development of renewable energy Infrastructure in compliance with the principles of sustainable development.
Judgement
The court partially amended its previous judgement of 19 April 2021 when it came to not considering a general directive for underground all high-tension power transmission lines in the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard as technically non-feasible and going against the environmental and developmental considerations in India. It took note of the developments in Science and technology as well as the issues that are aligned with technical feasibility of high-tension powers lines. The court did not insist on the applicability of a general rule but considered a different approach which was based on the concept of sustainable development. It held that wildlife and conservation and expansion of renewable energy constitute two environmental considerations that must be compatible rather than contradictory. Taking into consideration that renewable energy is crucial for combatting climate change, the court noted that adopting a strict approach would hinder India’s move towards renewable sources of energy.
The court established an Expert Committee with specialist who would in the field of conservation of wildlife, ecology, transmission of power and energy to study the feasibility of conservation methods and suggest solutions to conserve the Great Indian Bustard in various regions where its located. The committee had to suggest priority conversation zones, research on the feasibility of conservation methods and suggest solutions that could conserve the Great Indian Bustard in different regions where the species habited. The court acknowledged that people have the constitutional right to not suffer from climate change effects as this right is inherent in the guarantees of equality provided by article 14 of the constitution of India and the right to life guaranteed by article 21 of the constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that protection of environment should be achieved in a manner that there is an integration between conservation of wildlife and development of renewable energy sources through concepts of sustainable development. The court held that none of these objectives should be compromised and that any decision that involved environmental concerns to be made based on scientific and technical considerations. The court held that the right to be protected against the negative impacts of climate change is within the fundamental rights in articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution
Critical Analysis and Observations
The judgement in the M.K Ranjitsinh v. Union of India is a crucial landmark judgement in the field of environmental law in India as it establishes the right to protection against the impacts of climate changer under article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and it further expanded the horizon of environmental rights guaranteed in the constitution. It also made use of the principle of sustainable development and it has not taken into consideration the interest of wildlife conservation and development of renewable sources of energy as being contradictory but has attempted to strike a balance between the two through a pragmatic approach grounded in science. The creation of an expert Committee is an example of judicial restraint. Despite that, the judgement has faced some criticism too as even though the court was able to hold the constitutional rights against the negative impacts of climate change, there is no clear indication of what right constitutes and whether it can be enforced. Also, the relaxation of the previous order by the court of installing transmission lines underground has created apprehensions about the protection of the Great Indian Bustard depending on a lot of recommendations made by the expert Committee. This judgement has made ana effort towards the integration of climate governance, wildlife conversation and constitutional rights.
Conclusion
The judgement in M.K. Ranjitsinh and others v. Union of India is a landmark case in India’s environmental law and constitutional law. The Supreme Court by upholding the right not to suffer from the consequences of climate change as a facet of articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, it reaffirmed Indias constitutional obligations towards environmental protections and recognized the role of renewable energy in the fight against climate change. The judgement strikes a balance between wildlife conservation and sustainable development using a process of scientific and expert decision making. Some parts of the judgement require judicial clarification regarding the exact nature of the newly recognized right to climate. This case is a very crucial precedent for future environmental litigation in India.
This case comment is written by Shalom Manamela, a third-year student of Noida International University.
REFERENCES
- M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors v Union of India & Ors (2024) 19 SCC 139.
- Constitution of India.
- Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.
- Electricity Act 2003.
- National Action Plan on Climate Change.
- India’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
- Divan & Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India.
- Leela Krishnan, Environmental Law in India.
