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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. critical endangerment of the great indian bustard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for the modification of earlier judgments. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. india’s international commitments to climate change. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. right to a healthy environment as linked to climate change. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. global recognition of the right to a healthy environment. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. importance of solar power in addressing climate issues. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. initiatives for solar energy development. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. climate change litigation trends globally. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. feasibility concerns regarding overhead and underground power lines. (Para 51 , 52) |
| 10. interplay between conservation and climate change mitigation. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 11. holistic approach needed for environmental policy. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 12. constitution of an expert committee for balanced decision-making. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 13. implementation of conservation measures. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
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]
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 r
The court established the need for balancing conservation of critically endangered species with infrastructure development, mandating expert involvement in decision-making processes for sustainable e....
Particular piece of land is earmarked for public or communal purpose, it shall not be alienated even after change of classification of the land.
Court ruled that judicial orders must balance individual rights with pressing public interest, particularly in flood mitigation infrastructure projects, as outlined in the Specific Relief Act.
The court upheld the authority of a transmission company to construct electric lines without landowner consent under relevant statutes, emphasizing public interest and necessity over individual prope....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.