M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India: Wildlife Rights
Uploaded by
swarajdoshi27M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India: Wildlife Rights
Uploaded by
swarajdoshi27CASE COMMENT :- M K Ranjitsinh & Ors v.
Union of India & Ors
INTRODUCTION:-
"The Earth does not belong to us; we belong to the Earth." These profound words, often attributed
to Chief Seattle which resonate deeply in our era of ecological crisis. These words remind us that
while nature can thrive on its own, our actions often disrupt its harmony. Yet, human activities have
disrupted this equilibrium, imperiling not just our own future but the very fabric of life on Earth.
In recent judgment Dr. M.K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors 1, where the Court in its
obiter has equated the right of protection against adverse effects of climate change to a human right.
Also this case is considered to be a significant legal matter in India, especially concerning wildlife
conservation as this case revolves around the interpretation and implementation of Constitutional
values as well as various laws and regulations related to wildlife protection and environmental
conservation.
Landmark judgments such as Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [2] , M. C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath & Ors [3] , Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors [4] bear testament to the Indian
judiciary's unwavering commitment to environmental protection.
1 Dr. M.K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019
2 Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India - AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2715, 1996
Page 1 of 10
FACTS OF THE CASE: -
Dr M K Ranjitsinh, a prominent conservationist, along with others, filed a writ petition in the nature
of public interest against the Union of India and others, addressing concerns related to the
conservation of wildlife, protection of habitats, enforcement of environmental laws, and related
issues to protect two species of birds namely the Great Indian Bustard (‘GIB’ for short) and the
Lesser Florican5, which is on the verge of extinction. The GIB is listed in Part III of Schedule I of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. The species listed in Schedule I are granted the highest level of
protection. In 2021, the Supreme Court passed directions restricting and regulating power lines and
renewable energy projects in an area of 99,000 sq km in the states of Rajasthan and Gujarat, in
order to protect the GIB.
3 M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors - AIR 1996 SC 711
4 Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors - SC/0106/1991
5 Lesser Florican (Sypheotides indicus), also known as the likh or kharmore.
Page 2 of 10
Parties:
Appellant: M K Ranjitsinh & Ors
Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Judge:- Hon’ble Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI; J B Pardiwala; J Manoj Misra.
Bench:- Humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
ISSUES RAISED:-
The issue which arose out of the case :
1. The jurisdiction of the Supreme court was invoked to protect the Great Indian Bustard (GIB)
and the Lesser Florican, both of whom are on the verge of extinction. The petitioner seeks
under grounding all future overhead power lines in priority GIB habitat and
seeking a direction to the respondents to install divertor’s for the powerlines in potential habitat.
2. The Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and
the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy had applied to modify the 2021 order passed by
hon’ble court on grounds that It had adverse implications for India’s power sector, and under
grounding power lines was not possible. The Paris Climate Treaty (2015) is one of the key
grounds for seeking a modification of the 2021 order.
3. Whether there was a need to appoint a committee of experts to monitor and prepare data?
4. To manage the delicate balance between the conventions of international and domestic norms
and work for the betterment of the living species.
Page 3 of 10
CONTENTION:-
In this case, the petitioners that is M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. are of the opinion that the existence of
overhead cables is a major cause of concern as it poses the biggest threat to the survival of the Great
Indian Bustard. The Power Line Mitigation, 2018 report stated that every year 1 lakh birds die
because of collision with these power lines and there is an urgent need to reduce the mortality
caused by these power lines or else the extinction of Great Indian Bustards is certain.
The existence of overhead power lines is stated to have become a hazard due
to which the said species of birds on collision are getting killed. Even the Ministry of Power in its
15.03.2021 affidavit stated “The Great Indian Bustard (“GIB”) lacks frontal vision. Due to this,
they cannot detect powerlines ahead of them, from far. Thus, they are vulnerable to collision with
power lines.
The respondent highlighted the challenges encountered by the committee tasked with overseeing the
re-development of the habitat for the Great Indian Bustards (GIBs). It was emphasized that
respondent 4 was denied the opportunity to present their case before the judgment was rendered,
thus raising concerns about due process. India's international commitments, particularly those
outlined in the Paris Agreement of 2015 under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, were underscored. The respondent argued that the proposed area for monitoring
exceeded the habitat of the GIB’s and possessed potential renewable energy sources like sunlight
and wind, aligning with India's goals for sustainable [Link] respondent presented
research indicating that the decline in the GIB population began in the 1960s, much before the
electrification of the area and the construction of transmission lines. Research indicates that the
reasons for the dwindling population include a low birth rate, poaching, habitat destruction and
predation. The use of insecticides and pesticides has resulted in the reduction of locusts and
grasshoppers, which form an essential part of the prey of GIB’s. Efforts such as artificial incubation
Page 4 of 10
and insemination methods were mentioned, with a suggestion for the Government of India to adopt
such practices for GIB conservation.
RATIONALE:-
In a previous order dated 19.04.2021, the Supreme Court had directed that, where feasible, power
lines in areas inhabited by the Great Indian Bustard should be placed underground.
Recent Order: The Supreme Court has modified the previous order by recalling the directions and
constituting a fresh committee with independent experts, National Board of Wildlife members,
power company representatives, and bureaucrats from environmental and renewable energy
departments with an aim to balancing GIB conservation and India's sustainable development
goals. The Court has overturned an order issued by a bench of equal authority, which had carefully
considered the merits of the case before it. The government had requested a modification of the
order, citing technical and cost implications associated with underground power lines. This posed
challenges to the government's efforts to expand solar power production, particularly in the arid
regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat where the Great Indian Bustard is predominantly found. The Court
ordered the Central Government and the Ministries to implement interim conservation measures.
Outcomes of the judgment:
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court bench also acknowledged various challenges faced by
India in the process of achieving a healthy and sustainable environment.
• The judgment acknowledged the right to a healthy environment, safe from the ill-effects of
climate change, was a “fundamental human right”.
Page 5 of 10
• The apex court extends Article 14 and Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment. It
was observed that if climate change and environmental degradation lead to acute food and water
shortages in a particular area, poorer communities will suffer more than richer ones.
• The bench formed an expert committee comprising independent experts, members of
the National Board of Wildlife, representatives of power companies, and former and serving
bureaucrats drawn from departments of environment and forests and ministry of new and
renewable energy (MNRE).
• As part of its International climate change commitments under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, India has committed to
scale up non-fossil-based power capacity. However, this may in some cases be at odds with
conservation efforts for endangered species. In an evolution of its stance, the Court has now
observed that solar power is required to meet the country’s growing energy demands
• This judgment will set an important legal precedent and will influence the broader public
discourse on environmental matters and has the potential to shape future government policies.
The judgment addresses environmental and climate justice, aligning with global commitments
• The Judgment also highlighted the importance of solar power for arresting ills of climate change.
DEFECTS OF LAW-
While the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh and Ors. Vs. Union of India demonstrates a commendable effort
by the Supreme Court to address pressing environmental concerns, there are certain potential
defects or limitations in the legal framework and its application:
Page 6 of 10
1. Lack of Specific Legislation: The absence of specific legislation tailored to address the
conservation needs of endangered species like the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) limits the court's
ability to enforce comprehensive protection measures. Relying solely on existing environmental
laws may result in gaps or inconsistencies in addressing species-specific conservation challenges.
Overall, India’s legal framework lacks a single comprehensive climate change law.
2. Limited Enforcement Mechanisms: Despite issuing directives and allocating financial
responsibilities, the court's ability to ensure compliance with its orders may be constrained by
inadequate enforcement mechanisms. Without stringent penalties for non-compliance, stakeholders
may fail to prioritize conservation efforts, undermining the efficacy of judicial interventions.
Delhi’s continuing air pollution is a classic example of the hiatus between jurisprudence and
policy.
3. Inadequate Consideration of Scientific Evidence: While the court acknowledged the scientific
evidence presented by both parties, there may be room for greater reliance on expert opinion and
empirical data in informing conservation strategies. A more robust evidentiary framework could
enhance the court's ability to formulate targeted and evidence-based interventions for species
conservation.
4. Insufficient Consultation with Stakeholders: The case commentary suggests that the court's
decision-making process may have been primarily informed by the arguments presented by the
petitioners and respondents, with limited consultation with other relevant stakeholders such as
environmental NGOs, local communities, and scientific experts. A more inclusive approach to
decision-making could enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of conservation measures.
5. Lack of Long-Term Planning: While the court's directives address immediate conservation
needs, there appears to be a lack of emphasis on long-term planning and sustainable management
Page 7 of 10
strategies for GIB conservation. Without a comprehensive framework for habitat restoration,
population monitoring, and adaptive management, the effectiveness of conservation efforts may be
compromised in the face of evolving environmental challenges.
Addressing these defects would require concerted efforts from policymakers, legal experts,
scientists, and civil society stakeholders to strengthen the legal framework for species conservation
and ensure its effective implementation in practice.
INFERENCE-
In essence, M K Ranjitsinh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors might represent a ray of hope for
environmental advocates, signaling a fervent dedication to safeguarding India's rich biodiversity for
generations to come. 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. Environmental issues like
receding glaciers, floods, landslides, heatwaves, poor air and water quality receive attention only
when they become an emergency but with such an approach , the issue of climate change would
become grave.
REFERENCE -
IOA -
[1]Dr. M.K Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019
[2] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India - AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2715, 1996
[3] M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors - AIR 1996 SC 711
Page 8 of 10
[4] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors - SC/0106/1991
Sources referred -
• [Link] - Judgement -
[Link]
[Link]
• INDIAN EXPRESS - News blog --(April. 14, 2024, 12:06 AM)
[Link]
9240502/
• The Wire - News blog - (April. 14, 2024, 12:19 AM)
[Link]
climate-justice-in-india
• Indiankanoon - (April. 17, 2024, 2:32 PM)
[Link]
• Downtoearth - (April. 17, 2024, 3:28 PM)
[Link]
judgment-mean-for-climate-action-in-india--95462#:~:text=The%20Apex%20Court%20passed
%20its,GIB
• VERDICTUM - (April. 18, 2024, 6:32 PM)
[Link]
1530443?infinitescroll=1
Page 9 of 10
Name - Swaraj Doshi
College - Shri Shivaji Maratha Law College Pune, Maharashtra
Page 10 of 10
Common questions
Powered by AIThe Supreme Court's decision in Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors v. Union of India highlighted the tension between India's commitments under international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement and its conservation efforts for species like the Great Indian Bustard. The court overturned an earlier order requiring underground power lines to support energy sector expansion, arguing this was necessary to meet climate commitments, even though it may conflict with specific conservation goals . This decision underscores the need to balance sustainable development goals with species conservation .
Challenges such as collisions with power lines, low birth rates, poaching, and habitat destruction reflect broader issues of human impact on biodiversity and the difficulty of reconciling conservation with development. These issues highlight systemic weaknesses in environmental governance and the need for integrated conservation strategies that are informed by scientific data and responsive to socio-economic dynamics .
The case sets an important precedent by recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental human right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution . It acknowledges the need to align domestic environmental protection efforts with international climate commitments. This dual focus on individual species conservation and broader environmental sustainability is likely to influence both judicial reasoning and legislative frameworks in future environmental matters .
International commitments, especially the Paris Agreement, played a crucial role in shaping the court’s approach to balance conservation efforts with renewable energy expansion. The need to scale up non-fossil-based energy constrained the court's ability to mandate stringent conservation measures, such as underground power lines, as these could impede India's ability to meet international climate targets while also conserving the Great Indian Bustard .
The court's ruling reinforces the interpretation of the right to a clean environment as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. By recognizing the adverse effects of climate change as encroachments on fundamental human rights, the judgment elevates environmental protection from a regulatory obligation to a human rights imperative .
The Supreme Court's judgment addressed enforcement challenges by forming an expert committee to propose feasible conservation measures while ensuring the energy sector's growth. This decision reflects awareness of limited enforcement mechanisms under existing laws, and the need for a coordinated approach involving experts from various fields to navigate practical challenges in species conservation without stifling economic development .
The limitations include lack of specific legislation tailored for endangered species conservation, inadequate enforcement mechanisms for compliance with judicial orders, insufficient reliance on scientific evidence in formulating conservation strategies, limited stakeholder consultation during decision-making, and absence of long-term planning for habitat restoration and adaptive management .
The Supreme Court’s decision reflects the need to balance these priorities by recalling the order to underground power lines, instead forming a committee to find solutions that harmonize renewable energy development with the conservation needs of species like the Great Indian Bustard. This reflects an understanding that while renewable energy is essential to combat climate change, its deployment must not come at the expense of critical wildlife conservation needs .
The petitioners emphasized these measures due to the high mortality rate among Great Indian Bustards caused by collisions with overhead power lines. The birds' poor frontal vision makes them particularly vulnerable to such collisions. Thus, installing diverters and underground power lines were considered vital strategies to mitigate these threats and prevent the species from further decline .
The judgment implies that the judiciary will play a proactive role in mediating between development pressures and environmental conservation, striving for a balanced solution that respects both legal obligations under international agreements and the constitutional mandate to protect the environment. This decision suggests a continued judicial willingness to intervene and adapt strategies in light of evolving scientific insights and socio-economic realities .