Regulation Of Renewable Energy Projects In GIB Habitats: M.K. Ranjitsinh V. Union Of India

Summary

In M.K. Ranjitsinh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on March 21, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant constitutional ruling recognising the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. While addressing the conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), the Court balanced environmental protection with India’s renewable energy commitments and recalibrated its earlier blanket directions on undergrounding power lines by deferring to expert assessment.

Case Timeline

The civil lawsuit was initiated because of the drastic reduction in numbers of the Great Indian Bustard, mostly due to flying into power lines that were built as a part of renewable energy projects. In April of 2021, the Supreme Court ordered that power lines in areas where the Great Indian Bustard was identified as residing would be put underground; the Union of India then filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting a modification to that order based on the technical, economic and environmental limitations of putting power lines underground, as well as India’s international obligations to increase the amount of renewable energy generated. On March 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued operative directions and appointed an expert committee to analyse the issue further, with its formal opinion released after.

Issues raised

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not it would be both reasonable and practicable to require that all power lines in the areas where the Great Indian Bustard resides be put underground, in light of other factors, such as wildlife conservation, sustainable development, and India’s obligations to address climate change issues.

Arguments

Appellants argued that just as the ongoing construction of overhead transmission lines within areas where Great Indian Bustard roost exists places an extreme level of risk on this endangered bird species, so too does this impede State duties to safeguard our environment (under Art. 21) and wildlife (under Art. 48A) in accordance with the Constitution of India. According to the Appellants, any scientific evidence indicates that there exists a clear correlation between fatalities resulting in the loss of birds as a result of overhead power transmission lines and that therefore clear and unreasonable risks to this population of birds must be prevented regardless of the cost of so doing.

The Union of India contended that imposing a blanket requirement for underground power lines would not only be impractical; it would impose an unnecessary financial burden on all electrical utilities and require considerably more extensive technical and physical provisions. The Union asserted that the construction of large-scale renewable energy facilities is critical to India’s ability to fulfil its international commitments to address climate change and therefore disrupting these critical projects could impinge on India’s broader environmental goals.

Judgment

The Supreme Court modified its 2021 directions and held that decisions concerning undergrounding or overhead installation of power lines must be informed by scientific and technical expertise. It constituted a committee of experts to assess the feasibility and extent of such measures in priority conservation areas and directed the committee to submit its report by July 31, 2024. Crucially, the Court held that the absence of specific climate change legislation does not negate the existence of a constitutional right against the adverse effects of climate change, locating this right within Articles 14 and 21.

Analysis

India’s environmental constitutionalism has been advanced by this decision, which provides, for the first time, a right to not suffer from the detrimental effects of climate change.  The use of Article 14 as the foundation for the Court’s reasoning is also noteworthy. The Court has emphasised the fact that climate change creates food insecurity, water scarcity, and displacement issues, and highlighted that these negative impacts will disproportionately affect members of poorer and indigenous communities, those living in the forests, and those who rely on agriculture for their livelihood. The Court has therefore framed climate change as an issue of equality in its context, rather than simply an environmental concern. This develops the interpretation of the Constitution in a manner that is consistent with scientific conclusions, as well as India’s socio-economic conditions.

The Court has also exercised extreme caution in not issuing prescriptive technical mandates and instead has deferred to experts when it comes to evaluating and developing regulatory frameworks. The Court’s ruling, therefore, reflects a mature balancing between protecting the environment, conserving biodiversity and supporting sustainable development goals. In addition, the Court has recognised India’s need for a strong renewable energy initiative and in this way, has framed environmental goals not as competing interests, but as an opportunity to achieve an integrated, holistic approach toward sustainability.

Conclusion

The decision in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India is a landmark in recognising climate change as a constitutional concern grounded in equality and life. By harmonising wildlife conservation with climate and development obligations, the Supreme Court set a precedent for rights-based, balanced environmental adjudication that prioritises both present ecological needs and future sustainability.