Balancing Conservation and Development: A Case Analysis of the Great Indian Bustard Judgment
By Advocate Avichal Pandey, Allahabad High Court
Introduction
The decision of the Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. marks a significant milestone in Indian environmental jurisprudence. The case raises a complex constitutional and ecological question: how to reconcile biodiversity conservation with the imperative of renewable energy development.
At its core, the case deals with the protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, while also addressing India’s international commitments towards clean energy transition.
Ecological Significance of the Great Indian Bustard
The Great Indian Bustard, locally known as Godawan, is one of the heaviest flying birds and a flagship species of India’s grassland ecosystem. Its presence reflects ecological balance in arid and semi-arid landscapes.
However, due to habitat loss, infrastructure expansion, and particularly collision with overhead transmission lines, the species now faces imminent extinction. The Supreme Court noted that the population has drastically declined and is now confined largely to parts of Rajasthan.
Genesis of the Litigation
The matter originated through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking urgent judicial intervention for the conservation of the GIB. The petitioners prayed for:-
●Immediate protection measures
●Installation of bird diverters
●Restriction on infrastructure projects in critical habitats
●Formation of an expert body for conservation oversight
2021 Interim Order: A Conservation-Centric Approach
In its interim order dated 19 April 2021, the Supreme Court adopted a precautionary approach, directing:-
●Undergrounding of overhead power lines in priority habitats,
●Installation of bird diverters where undergrounding was not feasible,
●Restriction on new overhead transmission lines in a vast area (~99,000 sq. km).
This order was widely seen as a strong step towards species protection, but it also raised concerns regarding its feasibility and impact on renewable energy projects.
Challenge by the Union and Renewable Energy Sector
The Union Government and energy stakeholders sought modification of the 2021 order on several grounds:-
●Technical infeasibility of undergrounding high-voltage lines
●Adverse impact on solar and wind energy potential
●India’s commitments under international climate agreements
●Risk of increased dependence on fossil fuels
2024 Order: Shift Towards a Balanced Approach
Recognizing the competing interests, the Supreme Court in its order dated 21 March 2024 adopted a balanced and pragmatic approach:-
●It recalled the blanket direction for undergrounding,
●Emphasized the need for scientific and expert-driven decision-making,
●Acknowledged that both biodiversity conservation and climate action are equally critical.
The Court rightly observed that these objectives are not mutually exclusive but must be harmonized.
Constitution of Expert Committee
To achieve this balance, the Court constituted a multidisciplinary Expert Committee comprising:-
●Wildlife experts
●Forest Officials
●Energy sector specialists
●Government representatives
The Committee was tasked with recommending site-specific, scientifically informed solutions for conservation and infrastructure development.
Key Recommendations of the Expert Committee
1. Rationalisation of Priority Areas
The Committee redefined critical habitats for the GIB, expanding and refining conservation zones based on scientific data.
2. Conservation Measures
●Habitat restoration
●Predator management
●Community engagement
●Strengthening protection mechanisms
3. Regulation of Power Infrastructure
●Creation of designated power corridors,
●Undergrounding or rerouting of select lines,
●Use of insulated cables in sensitive areas,
●Case-by-case mitigation instead of blanket bans
4. Rejection of Blanket Use of Bird Diverters
The Committee found insufficient scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of bird diverters and recommended further study.
Judicial Reasoning and Legal Principles
1. Doctrine of Sustainable Development
The Court reaffirmed that environmental protection and economic development must coexist.
2. Role of Expert Bodies
The judgment underscores judicial restraint in technical matters, emphasizing reliance on domain experts.
3. Article 21 and Environmental Protection
The case implicitly reinforces that right to life includes ecological balance and biodiversity protection.
4. Policy vs Judicial Intervention
The Court acknowledged that decisions involving infrastructure and energy policy should not be dictated solely through judicial orders without expert input.
Corporate Environmental Responsibility (CER)
A notable aspect of the judgment is the discussion on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) evolving into Corporate Environmental Responsibility.
The Court highlighted:-
●Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013,
●Expanded fiduciary duties under Section 166,
●The obligation of corporations to protect environmental interests alongside profit-making
"This reflects a paradigm shift from voluntary philanthropy to statutory environmental accountability."
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is significant for several reasons:-
●Moves away from absolutist environmental protection towards context-sensitive regulation
●Recognizes climate change mitigation as a competing environmental priority
●Promotes scientific governance and stakeholder consultation
●Establishes a framework for resolving future conflicts between ecology and infrastructure.
Conclusion
The M.K. Ranjitsinh case represents a mature evolution of Indian environmental law. Rather than choosing between conservation and development, the Supreme Court has attempted to harmonize both through a nuanced, evidence-based approach.
The ruling serves as a reminder that environmental governance in the 21st century must be adaptive, interdisciplinary, and forward-looking, ensuring that economic progress does not come at the cost of ecological extinction.
Post a Comment