Text

MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Brief Facts of the Case
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by renowned conservationist MK
Ranjitsinh and others, drawing the Supreme Court’s attention to the alarming decline in the
population of two critically endangered birds namely, the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the
Lesser Florican. The petition highlighted that overhead power lines, laid across the arid
grasslands of Rajasthan and Gujarat, were a leading cause of electrocution-related fatalities
for these birds, whose unique biology and nesting habits make them extremely vulnerable to
infrastructure hazards. The petitioners sought urgent directions from the Court to shift all
existing and new power lines underground within priority and potential GIB habitats, prohibit
new renewable energy projects in these areas, and formulate a nationwide meta-population
conservation framework. They also requested the appointment of an empowered committee
for ongoing implementation.

Legal Issues Involved
The matter presented a significant constitutional challenge requiring the Court to balance two
competing rights- the protection of endangered wildlife under the right to life and ecological
justice, and the necessity of achieving energy security through renewable sources in
furtherance of India’s international obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement. The Court
also examined whether its earlier judgment dated 19 April 2021, which mandated extensive
undergrounding of power lines, remained legally tenable in view of new evidence regarding
feasibility and costs. Furthermore, the case gave rise to the doctrinal evolution of whether the
right to a healthy environment under Articles 14 and 21 should be interpreted to include a
distinct right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.

Arguments Presented by the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the GIB is one of the heaviest flying birds in the world, prone
to collisions with power lines due to its low flight altitude and poor frontal vision. They cited
international conservation status reports and data indicating a decline in the GIB population
from around 1,260 in the 1960s to fewer than 200 by 2018. It was argued that the existing and
proposed transmission infrastructure directly violated the principles of precaution and non-
regression. The petitioners urged the Court to reaffirm its earlier directions for
undergrounding and to direct all authorities to cooperate in a holistic grassland conservation
strategy. Reliance was placed on Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution and
previous judicial precedents emphasizing the right to a clean and safe environment.

Arguments Advanced by the Respondents
The Union of India and its ministries submitted that the earlier order of the Court had
unintended consequences, adversely affecting the implementation of India’s renewable
energy policies. They argued that large areas of Gujarat and Rajasthan, which were covered
under the Court’s 2021 order, had the highest solar and wind potential and that blanket
undergrounding in over 99,000 sq. km. would significantly impede India’s goal of achieving
500 GW of non-fossil energy capacity by 2030. Detailed technical data was presented to
demonstrate that undergrounding high-voltage lines is both technologically impractical and
economically prohibitive. The respondents also outlined ongoing efforts including captive
breeding programs, habitat restoration, and international collaborations for GIB conservation.
They emphasized that while bird diverters were a viable solution, undergrounding could
endanger safety, increase energy loss, and pose serious implementation difficulties in desert
ecosystems.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark and nuanced judgment, balancing environmental
protection with India’s international climate responsibilities and developmental imperatives.
The Court acknowledged the legitimate concerns raised about the survival of the Great Indian
Bustard, a species facing near-certain extinction without targeted intervention. However, the
Court equally noted that imposing a blanket mandate for undergrounding power lines across
vast geographies was not a proportionate or pragmatic solution. After reviewing technical
reports and expert affidavits, the Court concluded that a case-by-case approach to
undergrounding was appropriate.
The Court emphasized that the 2021 judgment, while well-intentioned, lacked practical
feasibility in light of terrain-related challenges, technological limitations, and economic
viability. It was clarified that transmission losses from underground cables are significantly
higher and that the lifespan and safety of such infrastructure is questionable in desert regions
due to shifting sands, inability to trace faults, and risk of joint failure. The Court also took
note of the immense cost differential, observing that undergrounding could multiply project
costs by five to six times and create legal hurdles in the absence of statutory provisions for
land acquisition.
Recognizing the increasing impact of climate change, the Court expressly held that Indian
citizens have a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, an articulation
emerging directly from the fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It
observed that this right must be read into the evolving understanding of environmental
constitutionalism. The judgment cited past jurisprudence from M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath,
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, and Bombay Dyeing (3), and noted that climate-induced
vulnerabilities, especially affecting forest dwellers, tribal communities, and coastal
populations, engage the right to life and equality.
The Court also observed that there must not be a false binary between development and
conservation. Conservation of species like the GIB and mitigation of climate change are both
expressions of ecological justice and should not be approached in isolation. It emphasized the
importance of continued use of bird diverters as an interim measure, development of
conservation breeding, and collaboration between state and central governments for
managing protected habitats.
While modifying the operative directions from the 2021 order, the Court directed that a
technical committee continue to monitor the feasibility of undergrounding in specific
critical zones. It called for a balance between site-specific conservation imperatives and
India's renewable energy transition. The Court further urged that the central and state
authorities expedite the implementation of conservation programs, habitat mapping, and
ensure that no grassland is wrongly designated as ‘wasteland.’
Importantly, the judgment underscored that courts must remain informed by scientific and
ecological data, especially in environmental cases, and be careful not to enter into domains
requiring policy trade-offs without sufficient expertise. The Court asserted its commitment to
fulfilling India's international environmental obligations and reiterated the principle that
international treaties and environmental standards can be read into domestic constitutional
interpretation when they are not in conflict with municipal law.

Detail Information

Title

MK Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Court

: supreme court., 2024

Lenght/Sections/Order/Rules

-

Language

English

Case Number/Citation

2024 SCC OnLine SC 570

Matter(s)

-

Councels

Counsel for the Petitioners- Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Sonia Dube, Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Ms. Anshula Bakhru, Ms. Surbhi Anand, Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Ms. Saumya Sharma and others. Counsel for the Respondents- Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General of India; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR; and others appearing for the Union of India, Ministry of Power, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, and State Governments.

Statement of Responsibility

Jay Goyal/Unitedworld School of Law, Karnavati University

See Also

File Attachment

Comments