On December 19, 2025, a Supreme
Court Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S.
Chandurkar delivered a seminal judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 838 of 2019). This case, conjoined
with a civil appeal and an allied writ petition, represents a jurisprudential
watershed at the confluence of environmental law, constitutional duty, energy
policy, and corporate responsibility. At its heart lies the fate of the
critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), or Godawan, a majestic avian
species endemic to the arid grasslands of Rajasthan and Gujarat, whose
precipitous decline has been significantly attributed to collisions with
overhead power transmission lines emanating from the very renewable energy
projects championed to combat climate change.
The Court’s extensive opinion,
exceeding sixty pages, is not merely an adjudication of competing claims; it is
a profound exposition on the judiciary’s role in reconciling ostensibly conflicting
constitutional and statutory mandates: the imperative to protect endangered
species under the public trust doctrine and the Precautionary Principle, and
the national commitment to a sustainable energy transition. For the legal
practitioner, this judgment offers a masterclass in balancing complex,
polycentric issues through structured judicial review, expert deference, and
purposive interpretation of legislative frameworks, including the nuanced
integration of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with environmental
custodianship.
Factual Matrix and Procedural
History: A Litigation of Competing Necessities
The litigation originated in a
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed in 2019, seeking urgent
directions for the conservation of the GIB and the Lesser Florican. The
petitioners highlighted that the GIB, classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ by
the IUCN, faced an existential threat primarily from overhead power lines
crisscrossing its habitat in the Thar Desert—a region also endowed with immense
solar and wind energy potential.
The Court’s initial interim order
dated April 19, 2021, imposed a sweeping restriction, directing the
undergrounding of all power lines in a vast “priority and potential area”
spanning approximately 99,000 square kilometres. This order, while
well-intentioned, soon proved operationally contentious. The Union Government,
through the Ministries of Power, New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), and
Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC), filed an application for
modification. They argued that a blanket undergrounding mandate was technically
infeasible for high-voltage lines, exorbitantly costly, would drastically
increase transmission losses, and critically, would stymie India’s renewable
energy targets, potentially forcing a reliance on coal-fired power and
undermining global climate commitments.
Recognising the complexity, the
Court, in a pivotal order dated March 21, 2024, recalibrated its approach. It
recalled the 2021 directions, acknowledging that “a dilemma such as the present
one does not permit the foregrounding of one of these as a priority, at the
cost of the other.” The Court constituted a high-powered Expert Committee,
comprising specialists from wildlife biology, forest conservation, and power
systems engineering. The Committee’s remit was to devise a nuanced,
evidence-based plan balancing “the need for the preservation of the GIB which
is non-negotiable, on one hand, with the need for sustainable development… on
the other hand.”
The Expert Committee’s
Deliberative Process and Key Recommendations
The Committee undertook an
exhaustive process involving field visits, stakeholder consultations with
renewable energy generators, transmission utilities, forest departments, and
local communities, and scientific analysis. It submitted separate reports for
Rajasthan and Gujarat.
Core Recommendations Included:
1.Rationalisation of Habitat:
The Committee recommended a “Revised Priority Area” of 14,013 sq. km in
Rajasthan (an addition of 850 sq. km) and 740 sq. km in Gujarat, based on
recent GIB sightings and habitat suitability, moving away from the earlier
excessively large zone.
2.In-Situ Conservation
Measures: A suite of measures including habitat restoration, predator
management, invasive species removal, community engagement, and the potential
declaration of Conservation Reserves.
3.Power Line Mitigation –
A Graded Approach: The Committee rejected a one-size-fits-all solution,
proposing a voltage-specific and location-sensitive strategy:
a. In Revised Priority Areas:
A general prohibition on new wind turbines and new solar plants 2MW. New
overhead lines were to be permitted only through designated, consolidated
‘power line corridors’ to minimise habitat fragmentation.
b. For Existing Lines: A
combination of immediate undergrounding for identified critical 33kV segments,
rerouting of specific 66kV and above lines, and the use of insulated cables or
aerial bunching for lower voltage (11kV and below) distribution lines near
settlements.
4.Skepticism on Bird Flight
Diverters (BFDs): The Committee did not recommend blanket installation of
BFDs, citing unproven efficacy specifically for bustards, high maintenance
costs, and the preference for more permanent structural solutions like
rerouting and habitat consolidation.
5.Project GIB and Funding:
Advocacy for a consolidated “Project Bustard” with dedicated funding, akin to
Project Tiger, and the use of Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and
Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds.
Submissions and Contentions: A
Clash of Perspectives
The Court’s judgment meticulously
records the arguments of diverse stakeholders, reflecting the multidimensional
conflict:
1. Renewable Energy
Generators: Represented by senior counsel, they objected to the expansion
of the priority area, the 2MW cap on solar projects, and the restrictions on
new overhead lines. They argued for site-specific safeguards like BFDs instead
of blanket prohibitions and sought exemptions for projects where land was
already allotted. They emphasized the statutory role of the Central Electricity
Authority (CEA) under the Electricity Act, 2003, in overseeing such technical
decisions.
2. The Petitioners
(Conservationists): While accepting most Committee recommendations, they
pressed for additional safeguards: inclusion of a specific 657 sq. km corridor
(Rasia-Degrai) into the priority area, mandatory BFDs on all existing lines in
potential areas, a complete ban on new overhead lines in priority zones, and
time-bound undergrounding of 250 km of critical lines identified by the
Wildlife Institute of India (WII).
The Court’s Analysis and
Reasoning: Deference, Distinction, and Direction
The Court’s analysis, structured
around the petitioners’ objections, demonstrates a disciplined application of
judicial review principles in the face of technical complexity.
1.Deference to Expert
Judgment: The Court consistently deferred to the Expert Committee’s
findings on technical and scientific matters. It refused to second-guess the
2MW threshold for solar projects, the exclusion of the specific 657 sq. km area
from the priority zone (accepting the Committee’s rationale of existing dense
power infrastructure and agricultural use), and the graded approach to
undergrounding. The Court held that such quantitative and technical
determinations, made after stakeholder consultation, were within the
Committee’s remit and deserved respect.
2.Rejecting Over-Delegation:
The Court dismissed the generators’ plea to further delegate mitigation
decisions to the CEA. It reasoned that the Committee already included power
sector experts, and further delegation would cause untenable delay in
implementing urgent conservation measures. This underscores the Court’s
preference for a consolidated, time-bound action plan over open-ended
regulatory processes.
3.The BFD Conundrum – Awaiting
Evidence: On the contentious issue of BFDs, the Court accepted the
Committee’s cautious stance. It highlighted the twin problems of unproven
efficacy for bustards and significant maintenance challenges. However, noting
previous affidavits from the Ministry of Power and WII recommending BFDs in
critical areas, the Court did not shut the door entirely. It directed the
Inspector General, Wildlife (MoEFCC) to ensure further studies and pilot
projects to assess their effectiveness, thereby marrying caution with the
potential for future evidence-based intervention.
4.Clarifying the Scope of
Directions: The Court declined to issue directions on matters not squarely
before it or adequately examined by the Committee. It refused to impose a
blanket prohibition on limestone mining in the habitat, noting that mining is
governed by its own robust regulatory regime (MMDR Act, EPA) which the
authorities were expected to apply with due regard to ecological sensitivity.
This reflects judicial restraint and respect for specialised statutory
frameworks.
The CSR Doctrine: A
Jurisprudential Innovation in Environmental Custodianship
Perhaps the most legally
innovative segment of the judgment is its obiter dicta on Corporate Social
Responsibility (Sections 41-43). The Court articulates a profound doctrinal
expansion, framing CSR not as discretionary philanthropy but as a statutory and
constitutional imperative for environmental protection.
a. From Philanthropy to Statutory
Trust: The Court notes that Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013,
institutionalises CSR, codifying the principle that “corporate profit is not
solely the private property of shareholders but is partly owed to the society
that enables its generation.” It invokes the concept that “private property is
a trust.”
b. Expansion of Fiduciary Duty:
Citing Section 166(2), the judgment emphasises that directors’ fiduciary duties
now extend to acting in the best interests of the “community and for the
protection of environment.” This statutory expansion recognises the corporation
as “an organ of society.”
c. CSR as Constitutional &
Environmental Duty: The Court powerfully links CSR to the fundamental duty
under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. It holds that a corporate legal
person shares this duty to protect the environment. Therefore, “allocating
funds for the protection of environment is not a voluntary act of charity but a
fulfilment of a constitutional obligation.”
d. The ‘Polluter Pays’ and
‘Species Best Interest’ Standard: Integrating environmental law principles, the
Court states that where corporate activities threaten endangered species, the
‘Polluter Pays’ principle mandates that companies bear the cost of species
recovery. It reaffirms the “Species Best Interest” standard from Centre for
Environmental Law v. Union of India, prioritizing survival over commercial
interests. CSR funds are identified as the tangible mechanism to fulfil this
mandate for ex-situ and in-situ conservation.
This reconceptualization of CSR
as “Corporate Environmental Responsibility” provides a potent legal tool for
conservation funding and imposes a heightened standard of ecological diligence
on companies operating in sensitive regions.
Final Directions and
Implications for Legal Practice
The Court’s operative directions
largely adopt and enforce the Expert Committee’s recommendations, with specific
mandates for optimization of power line routes to share common corridors. Key
directives include:
1. Formal adoption of the Revised
Priority Areas.
2. Implementation of all in-situ
and ex-situ conservation measures.
3. Enforcement of restrictions on
new renewable projects (>2MW solar, all new wind) within priority areas.
4. Time-bound (two-year)
completion of specified undergrounding and rerouting of critical power lines.
5. Further study on BFDs by
designated authorities.
Conclusion: A Blueprint for
Balancing Sustainable Development
The M.K. Ranjitsinh judgment is a
landmark for several reasons. For environmental lawyers, it reinforces the
justiciability of species conservation under Article 32, the application of the
Precautionary Principle, and the non-negotiable status of protecting critically
endangered species. For energy and infrastructure lawyers, it demonstrates that
renewable energy projects, despite their climate benefits, are not immune to
rigorous environmental scrutiny and must internalise the costs of ecological
mitigation.
Most significantly, the judgment
provides a sophisticated blueprint for adjudicating polycentric disputes. It
illustrates that the judicial role is not to choose one paramount goal over
another (conservation vs. clean energy), but to structure a decision-making
process—through expert committees—that seeks to optimise both. It moves away
from absolutist, court-imposed technical mandates (like blanket undergrounding)
towards nuanced, evidence-based, and implementable regulatory solutions crafted
by domain experts.
Finally, by eloquently expanding
the doctrine of CSR to encompass a constitutional environmental duty, the
Supreme Court has armed conservation advocates and regulators with a powerful
new legal argument. It signals that corporate capital, generated from the
exploitation of natural landscapes, carries an inherent obligation to fund the
preservation of those very ecosystems. In the enduring conflict between
development and conservation, this judgment affirms that the law must not
preside over the extinction of a species, but must engineer its salvation, even
amidst the pressing demands of a warming planet. The Godawan’s future, and that
of countless other species, may well depend on the enforcement and elaboration
of these profound legal principles.
0 Comments