Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 2088

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 838 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022 With Writ Petition (C) No. 549 of 2025.
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kanika Chugh, Adv. Ms. Priya Dhankhar, Adv. Mr. Suhael Buttan, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rathi, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv. Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Anand, Adv. Ms. Anshula L Bakhru, Adv. Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv. Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Adv. Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Chanda, Adv. M/s. Legal Options, AOR Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Ameyvikrama Thanvi, Adv. Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Deepak Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Keshav Singh, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal , AOR Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Animesh Rajoriya, Adv. Mr. Tarun Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Deependra Kumar Pathak, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shalini Haldar, Adv. Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv. Mr. Yashveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Pundir, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Bansal, Adv. Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. A. Karthik, AOR M/S. Vkc Law Offices, AOR Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. B P Singh, Adv. Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Ankur Sood, AOR Ms. Romila Mandal, Adv. Mr. Prajwal Suman, Adv. Mr. Dhaman Trivedi, Adv. Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Janmali Manikala, Adv. Mr. Girik Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Damodar Solanki, Adv. Mr. Deepak Thakur, Adv. Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shri Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kanika Chugh, Adv. Ms. Priya Dhankhar, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rathi, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Ms. Madhurima Tatia, AOR Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR

The court established the need for balancing conservation of critically endangered species with infrastructure development, mandating expert involvement in decision-making processes for sustainable environmental policies.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Environmental Protection Law - Conservation of endangered species - This case concerns the endangered Great Indian Bustard and arose from writ petitions filed seeking immediate directions for conservation. The court issued guidelines to the government on habitat preservation and renewable energy projects' regulation. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 30, 35, 76).

(B) Environmental law - The court emphasized that conservation efforts must balance ecological protection with renewable energy development, acknowledging the Great Indian Bustard's cultural significance and critical endangerment. (Paras 3, 14, 15, 27).

(C) Writ jurisdiction - The court stressed the importance of expert recommendations in environmental matters and ordered an expert committee to propose conservation strategies. (Paras 15, 25, 30, 76).

(D)

Findings of Court:
The Expert Committee's recommendations led to modifying priority areas for conservation and enforcing measures to mitigate infrastructure impacts on the bustard's habitats. (Paras 11, 14, 15, 76). (E)

Issues: The main issues addressed were habitat conservation versus energy development, measures to mitigate human intervention, and the implementation of protective laws. (Paras 6, 14, 15, 76). (F)

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that conservation of the Great Indian Bustard is paramount, integrating scientific consultation in shaping regulations to safeguard the species while allowing for sustainable development. (Paras 35, 60, 76). (G)

Result: The court approved the Expert Committee's recommendations and directed immediate implementation of conservation measures. (Para 77).

Judgement Key Points

यह निर्णय पर्यावरण संरक्षण, वन्यजीव संरक्षण और स्थायी विकास के बीच संतुलन बनाने पर केंद्रित है। मुख्य मुद्दा भारत में प्रवासी और स्थायी रूप से संकटग्रस्त प्रजातियों जैसे महान भारतीय बस्टर्ड (गोडावण) की रक्षा है। कोर्ट ने यह माना कि इन प्रजातियों का संरक्षण अत्यंत आवश्यक है, क्योंकि इनकी संख्या तेजी से घट रही है और वे विलुप्ति के कगार पर हैं।

कोर्ट ने संरक्षण प्रयासों के लिए विशेषज्ञ समितियों की भूमिका पर बल दिया और इन समितियों से सुझाव लेने का निर्देश दिया। साथ ही, यह भी कहा कि संरक्षण के प्रयासों में पारदर्शिता और वैज्ञानिक आधार पर निर्णय लेना जरूरी है।

निर्णय में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि विकास और पर्यावरण संरक्षण दोनों को साथ-साथ चलाना चाहिए। इसके तहत, बिजली लाइनों जैसे अवरोधों को कम करने के लिए विशेष उपाय जैसे कि बिजली के तारों को भूमिगत करना, रूटिंग का पुनः निर्धारण, और पक्षियों के लिए विशेष उपकरणों का प्रयोग करने का सुझाव दिया गया है।

कोर्ट ने यह भी निर्देशित किया कि नए ऊर्जा प्रोजेक्ट्स, जैसे कि सौर और पवन ऊर्जा संयंत्र, निर्धारित क्षेत्रों में सीमित मात्रा में ही अनुमति दी जाए। इन क्षेत्रों में नए प्रोजेक्ट्स के लिए प्रतिबंध लगाने के साथ-साथ, मौजूदा लाइनों को भी सुरक्षित बनाने के उपाय किए जाएं।

इसके अतिरिक्त, कोर्ट ने यह भी कहा कि पर्यावरण और वन्यजीव संरक्षण का दायित्व केवल सरकार का ही नहीं, बल्कि कॉर्पोरेट्स का भी है। कॉर्पोरेट्स को अपनी गतिविधियों के दौरान पर्यावरण संरक्षण को प्राथमिकता देनी चाहिए और CSR (सामाजिक उत्तरदायित्व) के तहत पर्यावरण संरक्षण में योगदान देना चाहिए।

अंत में, कोर्ट ने यह भी निर्देश दिया कि संरक्षण के प्रयासों को प्रभावी ढंग से लागू करने के लिए विशेषज्ञ समितियों की रिपोर्टों का पालन किया जाए और इन प्रयासों को समयबद्ध तरीके से पूरा किया जाए। साथ ही, पारिस्थितिकी और जैव विविधता की रक्षा के लिए आवश्यक दिशा-निर्देशों का कड़ाई से पालन किया जाए।

Table of Content
1. cultural significance of conservation efforts for the godawan. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. critically endangered status of the great indian bustard. (Para 4 , 5)
3. threats to the gib population due to human activities. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. legal standing of conservation petitions under article 32. (Para 9 , 10 , 12)
5. interim measures for power line installations. (Para 11)
6. formation and scope of the expert committee. (Para 14 , 15)
7. expert committee's recommendations for habitat restoration. (Para 17 , 18)
8. recommendations for power lines in conservation areas. (Para 24 , 25)
9. mandatory corporate environmental responsibility. (Para 35 , 36 , 39 , 40)
10. implementation of committee's conservation measures. (Para 41 , 44)
11. final directions on conservation efforts and area regulations. (Para 76 , 77)

JUDGMENT :

CONTENTS
I.	Godawan, The Great Indian Bustard
II.	Endangerment of the Great Indian Bustard
III.	Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
IV.	Interim Order of this Court dated 19.04.2021
V.	Interlocutory Application by Respondents
VI.	Order of this Court dated 21.03.2024 and formation of the Expert Committee
VII.	The Committee Reports
III.	Consideration of Objections to the Committee Reports by Renewable Energy Generators
IX.	CSR to include Corporate Environmental Responsibility
X.	Submissions by Petitioner with Objection to Committee’s recommendation
XI.	Objections/Additional measures suggested by Petitioners
XII.	Analysis
	A. Re: Inclusion of 657 sq. kms to the Revised Priority Area in Rajasthan
	B. Re: Even with respect to Non-Priority Areas, all Future Lines should Run through Power Line Corridors
	C. Re: All Existing and Future Lines must be marked with Bird Flight Divertors (‘BFDs’)
	D. Re: Regarding no new overhead powerlines (except 11kV and below) in the revised priority areas and leases of existing wind turbines not to be renewed
	E. Re: Prohibition on limestone or other mines in the priority areas or revised priority areas
	F. Re: Conversion of existing and installation of new 11 kV and below Powerlines as Aerial Bunched Cables in Revised Priority Areas
	G. Re: Undergrounding of 250 Km of critical power lines identified by WII in Rajasthan in a time-bound manner
	H. Re: Mandatory Undergrounding or Time-Bound Rerouting of All Powerlines (400 kV and Below)
	I. Re: Mitigation of two lines of 400 kV from Bhachunda-Varsana of approx. 11.5 Kms
XIII.	Directions

1. Godawan, The Great Indian Bustard: We may not find more apt lines to describe the present state and nature of one of the most wonderful avian species of our ecosystem, the conservation of which this Court has grappled with in the recent past:

“Luckily for one giant bird, they have such eyes. For millions of years, way before primates evolved into humans, they used this lateral vision to thrive in desert lands. This is the Great Indian Bustard, the State bird of Rajasthan. It's over three foot tall and weighs forty pounds, about as big as a bird can be and still be able to take wing. A bird that big should be easy to find.

Then people came and built wind turbines, and cables between tall pylons to ferry to the city electricity garnered from desert winds.

Now the species is almost extinct.” ¹[Martin Goodman, My Head for a Tree: The Extraordinary Story of the Bishnoi, the World’s First Eco- Warriors, pg. 95 (Profile Books, 2025).]

2. In Rajasthan, it is affectionately alluded by its cultural name as “Godawan”. It is inextricably connected to the culture and living of desert communities. The Godawan has been associated with the nobility of the Rajput kings and its majestic stature was likened to the qualities of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2025 Supreme(SC) 2088

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others – PetitionersVersusUnion of India & Others – RespondentsWrit Petition (C) No. 838 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022 With Writ Petition (C) No. 549 of 2025.Decided On : 19-12-2025

The court established the need for balancing conservation of critically endangered species with infrastructure development, mandating expert involvement in decision-making processes for sustainable environmental policies.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

M. K. Ranjitsinh VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 2088

M. K. Ranjitsinh VS Union of India - 2021 Supreme(SC) 292

M K Ranjitsinh VS Union of India - 2024 Supreme(SC) 317

MAHESH MAMINDLA vs STATE OF TELANGANA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1199

Yeshwant Hari Gawas, Son of late Shri. Hari Gawas VS Union of India - 2024 Supreme(Bom) 892

In the Matter of: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(SC) 436

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(SC) 1467

In Re : T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(SC) 878

Torrent Solar Power Private Limited vs Power Grid Koppal Gadag - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 1953

SOLANKI TALASHIBHAI GANDABHAIV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 17177

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 838 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No. 3570 of 2022 With Writ Petition (C) No. 549 of 2025.
Decided On : 19-12-2025