In the case of MK Ranjitsinh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court acknowledged freedom from the harmful effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right. This decision expanded the scope of Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that overhead power lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan's arid regions posed a grave threat to the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).
Facts
The case revolves around the need to balance preserving critically endangered species, such as the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), with the developmental needs of a growing nation. GIBs, primarily found in grasslands and arid regions, now remain mostly in Rajasthan. Classified as critically endangered by the IUCN, the species faces extinction due to its low reproductive rate laying only one egg at a time and significant threats from overhead power lines. According to the 2018 Power Line Mitigation Report, nearly 100,000 birds die annually due to power line collisions. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to halt new windmill and solar projects in priority areas identified by the Indian Wildlife Institute to protect the GIB from further decline.
Issues
- Whether appointing a committee of experts is necessary to monitor and gather data for protecting the declining Great Indian Bustard (GIB) population?
- What practical steps can be taken to safeguard the GIB species while continuing the development of renewable energy resources?
Argument by Petitioner
The appellants argued that the Great Indian Bustard's population is nearing extinction due to habitat changes. They sought immediate court orders for habitat protections, including underground power lines, removal of harmful structures, conservation policies, and restricted human activity. They also proposed a national grazing policy and treating GIBs as one metapopulation.
Argument by Respondent
The respondents countered with practical challenges, citing India's international commitments, technical difficulties with underground power lines, and the GIB's historical decline due to poaching, low reproduction, and pesticide use. They highlighted ongoing conservation programs and stressed balancing conservation with development.
Analysis of the Court
The Court highlighted the urgent need to protect the dwindling population of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) from extinction. It directed the installation of bird diverters to prevent further decline and mandated a feasibility study before installing underground transmission channels. The Court emphasized that establishing well-equipped breeding centers is crucial for the survival of this critically endangered species.
Acknowledging India’s international climate change commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, the Court suggested innovative financial solutions. These included invoking Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates corporate social responsibility, and Section 166(2), which obliges directors to act in the community and environment’s best interests. Additionally, funds under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 were recommended for mitigating wildlife threats.
The Court also recognized a constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under Articles 21 and 14, expanding environmental protection as a fundamental right.
In conclusion, in this case, the central issue was the near-extinction of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). The court considered several preventive measures but later revised them to ensure they balanced the country's energy needs with environmental preservation. Ultimately, the court emphasized the importance of maintaining a delicate balance between fulfilling international obligations, utilizing resources, and protecting nature. The decision aimed to achieve a solution that fairly addressed both priorities.
