SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 317

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ.
M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 And with Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv. Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Adv. Ms. Anshula L Bakhru, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Anand, Adv. Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv. Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Adv. Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv. M/S. Legal Options, AOR Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkataramani, AGI Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AORMr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Girish Chowdhary, Adv. Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohammed Haneef, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Mr. Shreay Saini, Adv. Mr. Tarun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ezaj . M Qureshi, Adv. Mr. Animesh Rajoriya, Adv. Mr. M.g. Ramchandran, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Ranjitha Ramchandran, Adv. Mr. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. A. Karthik, AOR M/S. Vkc Law Offices, AOR Mr. Varun K Chopra, Adv. Mr. Mehul Sharma, Adv. Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. B P Singh, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR Mrs. Arundhati Katju, Adv. Mrs. Smriti Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Deepak Singh, Adv. Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Parul Shrama, Adv. Mr. Ankur Sood, AOR Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv. Mr. Varun Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Girik Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Damodar Solanki, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

Individuals have a right to a healthy environment, intricately linked to their rights to life and social equity, necessitating a balance between environmental conservation and development commitments.

Headnote:(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Constitution of India, Articles 21, 14, 48A, 51A(g) - Conservation of Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican; jurisdictions of courts in addressing habitat loss and climate change impacts. (Paras 1-3, 4-5, 10-12, 59-60)

(B) Environmental Rights - The court recognizes the right to a healthy environment and the intersection of this right with human rights obligations under international law. (Paras 20-24, 26-30)

(C) Judicial review - Acknowledgement that modifications to environmental protection policies must involve expert consultation and a balanced approach to development needs. (Paras 56-60, 62)

Facts of the case:
Petition filed under Article 32 seeking urgent conservation measures for critically endangered GIB and Lesser Florican, addressing threats like habitat loss and overhead transmission lines causing mortality. (Paras 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
Modifications to prior orders on transmission line regulations, an expert committee appointed to evaluate sustainable solutions for GIB conservation while addressing renewable energy development. (Paras 61-70)

Issues: The necessity of balancing biodiversity conservation with energy development and addressing climate change impacts on endangered species.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized a holistic approach, integrating biodiversity conservation with sustainable development, affirming the right to a clean environment as essential to the right to life. (Paras 24, 30)

Result: Previous order modified; direction issued to appoint an expert committee for balanced decision-making on conserving GIB and renewable energy infrastructure.

Table of Contents

1. Article 32 writ petition for GIB conservation; court modifies previous blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines in GIB priority and potential areas. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 51 , 52 )

2. Conservation of GIB requiring undergrounding of transmission lines versus feasibility concerns and conflict with renewable energy and climate change mitigation obligations. (Para 4 , 7 , 52 , 53 , 60 , 61 , 62 )

3. Court recalls blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines, appoints Expert Committee to assess undergrounding feasibility and bird diverters, and directs submission of report. (Para 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 74 )

4. Whether a blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines in GIB areas is legally justified when it conflicts with renewable energy and climate obligations?

The court held that a blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines is not justified; the matter is best left to domain experts who can assess feasibility case by case, balancing GIB conservation with sustainable development and international climate commitments. (Para 52 , 53 , 60 , 61 , 62 )

5. Whether the right to be free from adverse effects of climate change is a distinct right under the Indian Constitution?

The court recognized that Articles 14 and 21 give rise to a right to be free from adverse effects of climate change, distinct from the right to a clean environment, as climate change impacts life, equality, and health. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 )

6. Must courts consider India's international climate obligations even when not enacted in domestic law?

Yes, the court held that courts must be alive to international climate obligations when adjudicating writ petitions, even if not enacted domestically, as these obligations inform the context of balancing conservation with sustainable development. (Para 56 , 58 )

7. How should courts approach environmental policy decisions requiring technical assessment?

The court held that environmental policy decisions requiring technical assessment are best left to domain experts; courts must rely on expert committees for feasibility assessment rather than issuing a priori sweeping directions without full understanding of technical implications. (Para 61 , 62 )

8. How should courts balance biodiversity conservation against climate change mitigation when they conflict?

The court held that conservation of endangered species and climate change mitigation are not binary choices but exist in dynamic interplay; both goals must be pursued without sacrificing either, as they are equally crucial and interconnected. (Para 53 , 60 )

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.

Table of Contents

A.

The Great Indian Bustard

B.

The judgment dated 19 April 2021 and subsequent developments

C.

The mission to combat climate change

I. India’s commitment under international conventions

II. The right to a healthy environment and the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change

III. Importance of solar power as a source of renewable energy

IV. Climate change litigation in other jurisdictions

D.

The reasons for the modification of the judgement dated 19 April 2021

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for protecting the Great Indian Bustard1[“GIB”] and the Lesser Florican, both of whom are on the verge of extinction. Given the importance of the issue at hand, a brief background of various aspects which pertain to the matter are discussed below.

A. The Great Indian Bustard

2. The GIB (the scientific name of which is ardeotis nigriceps) is native to southern and western India. It typically occupies grasslands or arid regions. The State of Rajasthan is home to a majority of the current population. With time, the country has seen a rapid and steady decline in the population of the GIB. As of 2018, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN as it is popularly known, classified the GIB as a ‘critically endangered’ species. In IUCN’s system of classification, only two categories indicate a graver threat to a particular species – ‘extinct in the wild’ and ‘extinct’. The GIB has been classified as a critically endangered species from 2011 until the most recent assessment in 2018. From 1994 to 2008, it was classified as ‘endangered’ and in 1988, it was labelled ‘threatened’. IUCN notes the justification for its classification of the GIB as a critically endangered species in the following terms:2[IUCN Red List, ‘Great Indian Bustard’ https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22691932/134188105#population]

“This species is listed as Critically Endangered because it has an extremely small population that has undergone an extremely rapid decline owing to a multitude of threats including habitat loss and degradation, hunting and direct disturbance. It now requires an urgent acceleration in targeted conservation actions in order to prevent it from becoming functionally extinct within a few decades.”

3. The Rajasthan government estimated that only about 125 GIBs were present in the year 20133[Government of Rajasthan, Forest Department, ‘Project Great Indian Bustard’ https://forest.rajasthan.gov.in/content/raj/forest/en/footernav/department-wings/project-great-indian-bustard.html] while IUCN placed the number of mature GIBs between 50 and 249.4[IUCN Red List (n 2).] There are significant factors bearing upon the dwindling numbers and low rate of reproduction of the existing population of these species. Pollution, climate change, predators and competition with invasive species are among the many threats that exacerbate the challenges faced by these vulnerable species. The attrition of the existing population of these endangered birds has been partly attributed to overhead transmission lines. GIBs usually lay a single egg which has an incubation period of approximately one month. The GIBs nest on open ground or in cavities in the soil. Consequently, their eggs are also laid and incubated on the ground. The eggs are therefore at risk of being preyed upon by local predators including mongooses, monitor lizards, and other birds. Cows may also trample on or crush the eggs while grazing in the grasslands. The loss of habitat is also a serious concern. As humans have expanded their settlements and economic activities into the grasslands, the natural habitat of the GIB has diminished. The expansion of human population and accompanying activities has also resulted in the fragmentation of the GIB’s habitat. The expansion of infrastructure such as roads, mining and farming activities ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top