CITATION: W.P. (C) No. 838 of 2019
BENCH: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (Then Chief Justice of India) J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra
JUDGEMENT: March 21, 2024
Introduction
Environmental governance in the twenty-first century increasingly confronts a difficult paradox: clean-energy infrastructure, deployed to address global climate change, can itself inflict severe localised ecological harm. This tension lies at the heart of the landmark decision in M K Ranjitsinh & Ors v Union of India & Ors (2024)[1]. The case required the Supreme Court of India to reconcile the survival of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) (Ardeotisnigriceps) with the infrastructure needed to meet India’s international commitments on renewable energy.
Although the litigation began as a species-specific conservation dispute, the Supreme Court used it as an occasion to make a far-reaching constitutional pronouncement: Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India[2] were held to encompass a distinct fundamental right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. This comment examines the case’s factual background, the legal questions before the Court, its reasoning, and the broader jurisprudential significance of the ruling
Background
The Great Indian Bustard[3], a large bird with poor frontal vision, is acutely vulnerable to fatal collisions with overhead power lines. By 2018, only a few dozen birds remained in their last desert-grassland habitats in Rajasthan and Gujarat, even as solar and wind transmission networks expanded rapidly across the same terrain. In response to a 2019 writ petition filed by conservationist Dr M K Ranjitsinh, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping interim order in April 2021 requiring all high- and low-voltage power lines within a 99,000 square-kilometre area of priority and potential GIB habitat to be laid underground or retrofitted. The Union Ministries opposed the order, arguing that the region held India’s greatest renewable-energy potential, and that a blanket prohibition on overhead lines would jeopardise the country’s 2030 climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.[4]
Issues before the Court
In order to balance the competing ecological equities, the Court had to consider
1. Whether it was technically, financially and environmentally feasible to underground high- and low-voltage transmission lines across 99,000 square kilometres of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
2. How India’s national and international obligations to combat climate change through renewable energy could be reconciled with the urgent conservation needs of a critically endangered species.
3. Whether the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 together give rise to a distinct, freestanding right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
Arguments
The GIB’s survival was the central point of contention between the petitioners and the Union. The petitioners argued that the low-vision birds of the Thar and Kutch deserts faced imminent extinction from overhead wires, and that developers should be required to underground the cables regardless of cost, invoking the public trust doctrine and the precautionary principle. The Union of India resisted this approach, pointing to the significant technical difficulty and expense of undergrounding high-voltage lines — four to five times costlier than overhead infrastructure. It argued that such costs would deter renewable energy investment, entrench dependence on coal power, and accelerate global warming to the ultimate detriment of ecosystems worldwide, including the GIB’s own habitat
Judgement
The Supreme Court modified its order of 19 April 2021, recognising that a blanket, scientifically unsubstantiated undergrounding requirement across 99,000 square kilometres was neither workable nor conducive to broader environmental goals. The Court made three key orders. First, it constituted a nine-member Expert Committee comprising wildlife biologists, environmentalists, electrical grid engineers and government officials to assess the situation on the ground. Second, the Committee was tasked with granular, site-specific mapping — identifying the narrower “critical” habitats where undergrounding remained essential, while permitting overhead lines fitted with bird diverters in “potential” or non-critical transit corridors. Third, the Court struck an equitable balance by lifting the general prohibition on overhead wires in potential habitats, allowing renewable energy development to proceed subject to strict, scientifically monitored safeguards.
Critical Analysis
1.Constitutionalising the Right against Climate Change
Indian courts have long read environmental protections into Article 21[5] through a “pollution free environment” framework — landmark decisions such as M C Mehta v Union of India[6]and Virender Gaur v State of Haryana[7] established that the right to life is meaningless without access to clean air, safe drinking water and sanitation. M K Ranjitsinh goes further: it is the first decision to draw a clear distinction between local pollution and global climate change,[8] and to recognise an independent fundamental right to be free from the latter’s adverse effects.
The Court reasoned that shifting disease patterns, rising temperatures and increasingly volatile weather disproportionately burden the poorest and most vulnerable communities. By tying climate vulnerability directly to Articles 14 and 21, the Court recognised climate change as a systemic threat to human rights, livelihoods, food security and health. It reinforced this interpretation with the Directive Principles: Article 48A[9], which obliges the State to protect and improve the environment, and Article 51A(g)[10], which imposes a duty on citizens to safeguard These non-justiciable provisions were used as interpretive lenses to expand the scope of the fundamental rights.
2. From “Green v Brown” to “Green v Green”
Most environmental litigation follows a familiar “green versus brown”[11] script, pitting environmental protection against polluting industrial development. M K Ranjitsinh instead presented a genuine “green versus green[12]” dilemma: species conservation against renewable energy expansion.The Court rightly observed that these objectives are not inherently incompatible, a healthy biosphere requires both a stable global climate and robust local biodiversity. Rather than adopting an all-or-nothing rule, the Court opted for an evidence based, scientifically calibrated approach, delegating the technical balancing exercise to an expert committee rather than attempting to resolve it through judicial fiat.
Critique and Future Challenges
Notwithstanding its significance, the judgment leaves several questions unresolved.
Under-operationalisation of the right: while the Court recognised a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, it did not define its contours. The precise obligations owed by the State, the mechanisms by which individuals might enforce this right, and the remedies available where climate inaction causes loss of property or life all remain unclear.
Technocratic delegation: by assigning the balancing function to an expert committee, the Court risks shifting decision-making from open judicial proceedings to closed administrative forums. Sustained judicial oversight is necessary to prevent commercial interests from overriding conservation objectives within such bodies.
Cost-benefit analysis vs the precautionary principle: The precautionary principle has always been given considerable weight in Indian environmental jurisprudence. Financial feasibility and clean-energy goals were given significant weight by the Court in M K Ranjitsinh, indicating a move toward practical cost-benefit analysis.15. This change should be handled carefully to avoid weakening future safeguards for especially vulnerable ecosystems.
Conclusion
M K Ranjitsinh & Ors v Union of India & Ors (2024) is a significant landmark in contemporary environmental law. The Supreme Court demonstrated judicial humility and pragmatism by amending its own extensive 2021 ruling, acknowledging that local species protection and global climate mitigation must be pursued together rather than as mutually contradictory objectives.
More significantly, the ruling modifies India’s constitutional structure by elevating the right against the adverse effects of climate change to the status of a fundamental right, equipping future generations with a meaningful legal tool to hold state and private actors accountable for climate inaction. The case stands as a powerful precedent for the proposition that sustainable development is not a binary choice between energy and ecology, but an ongoing, scientifically grounded process of coexistence.
Author: Yogesh Singh
2nd Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Student
C.M.P. Degree College, University of Allahabad
References
[1] M K Ranjitsinh v Union of India 2025 INSC 1472 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197139120/
[2] The Constitution of India 1950, art 14 and art 21 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19150/1/constitution_of_india.pdf
[3] Drishti IAS, ‘Great Indian Bustard’ (Drishti IAS, 10 June 2025) accessed 16 July 2026. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/great-indian-bustard-14
[4] Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) 3156 UNTS 79 https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement
[5] The Constitution of India 1950, art 21 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
[6] MC Mehta v Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/
[7] Virendra Gaur v State of Haryana [1994] Supp 6 SCR 78 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27930439/
[8] United Nations, ‘What Is Climate Change?’ (United Nations) <https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change> accessed 16 July 2026.
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 48A. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/871328/
[10] Constitution of India 1950, art 51A(g) indiankanoon.org/doc/1644544/
[11] Dongyang Zhang, Dingchuan Bai and Yizhi Wang, ‘Green vs. brown: Climate risk showdown–who’s thriving, who’s diving?’ (2024) 149 Journal of International Money and Finance 103198. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261560624001852
[12] M Neri and others, ‘Green versus green? Adverting potential conflicts between wind power generation and biodiversity conservation in Brazil’ (2019) 17 Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation 131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2530064419300537
