M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v Union of India & Ors. Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 with Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022 (judgment) (21 March 2024)

The case involved the protection of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, both described as being on the verge of extinction. M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 with Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022 (judgment) (21 March 2024), at para. 1. The judgment focuses primarily on the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) which is classified as critically endangered by the IUCN. The IUCN estimates there are between 50 and 249 GIB left in the world. Threats to the GIB include “[p]ollution, climate change, predators and competition with invasive species” and habitat fragmentation. Id. at para.. 3. An additional threat to the survival of the species is overhead transmission lines. Id. at para. 3. In 2019, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was invoked through a writ petition requesting guidance on conservation of the species.

In its judgment dated 19 April 2021, the Court imposed a blanket restriction on the establishment of overhead transmission lines on about 99,000 square kilometres of territory identified as priority and potential GIB areas. Id. at para. 5. In addition, the decision required the installation of bird diverters for existing overhead power lines in the these areas and called for the conversion of overhead lines to underground power lines, where feasible, within a year. Id. at paras. 5-6.

The present decision addresses a request for modification of the directions in the earlier judgment. The government argued in part that the judgment “has vast adverse implications for the power sector in India and energy transition away from fossil fuels;” that the government had made international commitments to transition away from fossil fuels; and that replacing power that would be lost with coal fired power plants would cause pollution. Id. at para. 7.

In its assessment, the Court first evaluated India’s climate change commitments. The Court recognized that a key strategy of India to meet these commitments is meeting an ambitious target for installing renewable energy capacity. The Court acknowledges that increasing renewable energy also reduces air pollution, helps alleviate poverty, and enhances quality of life. Id. at para. 18.

The Court then turns to the Indian legal framework listing the many laws that have been passed to address climate change. The Court also explains:

Article 48A of the Constitution provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Clause (g) of Article 51A stipulates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. Although these are not justiciable provisions of the Constitution, they are indications that the Constitution recognises the importance of the natural world. The importance of the environment, as indicated by these provisions, becomes a right in other parts of the Constitution. Article 21 recognises the right to life and personal liberty while Article 14 indicates that all persons shall have equality before law and the equal protection of laws. These articles are important sources of the right to a clean environment and the right against the adverse effects of climate change.

Id. at para. 20.

After reviewing a series of cases that acknowledge the impacts of climate change, the Court takes the next step to explicitly recognize a right against the adverse effects of climate change:

Despite a plethora of decisions on the right to a clean environment, some decisions which recognise climate change as a serious threat, and national policies which seek to combat climate change, it is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change. This is perhaps because this right and the right to a clean environment are two sides of the same coin. As the havoc caused by climate change increases year by year, it becomes necessary to articulate this as a distinct right. It is recognised by Articles 14 and 21.

Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised.

Id. at paras. 24-25.

The Court listed other rights that may be impacted such as the right to health and the right to equality. Id. at paras. 25-27. The Court also recognized that international law recognizes the impact of climate change on human rights. Id. at paras. 29-33.

According to the Court, the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change alongside the right to a healthy environment mandates states to focus on environmental protection and sustainable development. Consequently, the Court found that it is necessary for states such as India to meet their commitments under international law including climate change mitigation, adaptation, and fostering the right to a healthy and sustainable environment.

Further, the Court recognized the importance of solar energy to India’s transition to clean energy and attaining national energy security. Id. at paras. 37-43.

Regarding protection of GIB and impact to its habitat, the Court described information presented that categorized areas of importance to the GIB as ‘priority area,’ ‘potential areas,’ or ‘additional important areas.’ Id. at para. 51. In this regard, the Court recognised the significance of the areas noted as priority and potential GIB areas to solar power generation and decided that these regions were prime areas for solar energy production due to the arid desert terrain.

The Court explained that there were many reasons to modify the earlier judgment including the fact that overhead transmission lines are just one of many factors impacting the GIB; burying transmission lines is not always possible; and buried lines are significantly less efficient. Id. at para. 52.

The Court explicitly acknowledged the complexity of the problem before it:

[I]t is imperative to recognize the intricate interface between the conservation of an endangered species, such as the Great Indian Bustard, and the imperative of protecting against climate change. Unlike the conventional notion of sustainable development, which often pits economic growth against environmental conservation, the dilemma here involves a nuanced interplay between safeguarding biodiversity and mitigating the impact of climate change. It is not a binary choice between conservation and development but rather a dynamic interplay between protecting a critically endangered species and addressing the pressing global challenge of climate change.

Id. at para. 54.

Per the Court, India’s commitment to clean energy aligns with its sustainable development objectives and its international commitments. The Court acknowledged:

India’s international obligations and commitments in the present case. . . have not been enacted in domestic law. Regardless, the Court must be alive to these obligations while adjudicating writ petitions which seek reliefs that may hinder these obligations from being fulfilled or otherwise interfere with India’s international commitments as well as the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.

Id. at para. 58.

The Court recognized that sustainable development must include building a resilient and equitable future:

Beyond mere adherence to international agreements, India’s pursuit of sustainable development reflects the complex interplay between environmental conservation, social equity, economic prosperity and climate change. Its national goals in this regard require a holistic understanding of sustainable development that balances immediate needs with long-term sustainability, ensuring that present actions do not compromise the well-being of future generations. It acknowledges that solutions to today’s challenges must not only address pressing issues but also lay the groundwork for a resilient and equitable future.

Id. at para. 59.

The Court acknowledges the importance of addressing climate change at the same time as protecting biodiversity:

While balancing two equally crucial goals – the conservation of the GIB on one hand, with the conservation of the environment as a whole on the other hand – it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach which does not sacrifice either of the two goals at the altar of the other. The delicate balance between the two aims must not be disturbed. Rather, care must be taken by all actors including the state and the courts to ensure that both goals are met without compromising on either. Unlike other competing considerations, these do not exist in disjunctive silos. Therefore, 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.

Id. at para. 60.

Ultimately, the Court set up an expert committee to determine the best actions to protect the GIB while also meeting international climate change obligations and allowing sustainable development. This expert committee would be able to recommend the best plan for each area in question. The Court then modified its earlier order, substituting new instructions for most of the previous order, but leaving in place the injunction governing activities in the most critical areas for the GIB. Id. at paras. 61-71. New instructions included monitoring movement of the GIB, hindering predators, restoring grasslands, etc. The expert committee was tasked with submitting a report to the court by 31 July 2024.