MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India, Case Analysis

The case of MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India represents a pivotal moment in environmental jurisprudence of India addressing the delicate balance between wildlife conservation and renewable energy development. This landmark judgment not only underscores the country's commitment to sustainable development but also establishes the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions, explore Landmark Judgements .

Download MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India PDF

The Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a large bird native to the arid regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat has seen a dramatic decline in its population which leads to its classification as " critically endangered " by the International Union for Conservation of Nature ( IUCN) . Factors contributing to the decline are habitat loss , hunting, and notably, collisions with overhead power transmission lines. The expansion of renewable energy projects mainly solar and wind farms in the habitat of GIB has intensified these threats .

MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India : Petition and Claims

In response to the alarming decline of the GIB, MK Ranjitsinh and others filed a writ petition in 2019 before the Supreme Court of India . The petitioners sought immediate interventions for the protection and recovery of the GIB including :

• Installation of bird diverters on existing power lines.
   
• Conversion of overhead power lines to underground cables in critical habitats.
   
• A moratorium on new power projects in areas identified as critical habitats for the GIB.

The petitioners stressed that the existing power infrastructure has major threats to the survival of the GIB and urged the Court to mandate measures to mitigate these risks .

Supreme Court’s Response

The Supreme Court of India has issued in April 2021 an interim order imposing restrictions on the installation of overhead transmission lines in approximately 99,000 square kilometers of the GIB's habitat. The Court directed that future low-voltage power lines in priority areas be laid underground and mandated the installation of bird diverters on existing lines. The order of the court shows the initial inclination to prioritize the conservation of the endangered species 

Arguments Supporting the Petitioners

The petitioners said that the survival of the GIB was endangered crtitically because of anthropogenic factors mainly the proliferation of overhead power lines in its habitat . They contended that immediate and strict actions were necessary to control the extinction of the species emphasizing India's constitutional and international obligations to protect biodiversity.

Arguments Supporting the Respondents

The respondents including the Union of India and various ministries showed the country's commitments to combat climate change by promoting renewable energy . They argued that the 2021 interim order adversely affected India's ability to meet its international obligations under agreements like the Paris Accord which necessitated a transition to non-fossil fuel-based energy sources. Additionally they pointed out the technical and financial challenges associated with undergrounding high-voltage power lines.

MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India : Issue Addressed

The central issue before the Supreme Court was to find a balance between two virtuous causes: the conservation of the critically endangered GIB and the promotion of renewable energy projects essential for combating climate change.

MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India : Legal Provisions

The case gives the interpretation of provisions of the constitution :

• Article 21 : Right to life and personal liberty for a clean and healthy environment .
• Article 14: Right to equality, interpreted to include the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
• Article 48A: Directive Principle mandating the State to protect and improve the environment and protect wildlife .
• Article 51A(g): Fundamental duty of citizens to safeguard and improve the natural environment and have compassion for living creatures .

MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India : Judgment and Impact

On March 21, 2024, the Supreme Court revisited its earlier directives in light of the submissions made by the respondents. The Court recognized the significance of both conserving the GIB and fulfilling international commitments of India to renewable energy development . It acknowledged the technical challenges and potential infeasibility of undergrounding all power lines in the designated areas .

Consequently, the Court modified its previous order by limiting the undergrounding requirement to priority areas where feasible and ordering the installation of bird diverters in other regions . The decision underscored the balanced approach of the court which is aiming to harmonize environmental conservation with sustainable development goals.

Following the 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court's recognition of the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right has had significant implications. The acknowledgment has paved the way for more strong environmental litigation and policy-making emphasizing the State's obligation to mitigate climate change impacts. The judgment has influenced the formulation of guidelines for infrastructure projects so that development initiatives incorporate environmental considerations to protect endangered species like the GIB.

Conclusion

The MK Ranjitsinh vs Union of India case shows how India balances environmental protection with development. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom from the harmful effects of climate change is a fundamental right. This decision strengthens India’s push for sustainable growth. It also sets an example for future cases where the environment and development must work together. The judgment stresses that India’s growth must include care for nature.