Case title: M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019
Decided on: 21.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Hon’ble Justice J B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involves a Writ Petition (Civil) filed by M K Ranjitsinh & Ors. against the Union of India & Ors. Regarding the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, two endangered bird species. The case began with the filing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 concerning the conservation of the Great Indian Bustards (GIBs) under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners sought urgent measures for the protection and recovery of the GIB species, leading to the issuance of directions on April 19, 2021, restricting the setting up of overhead transmission lines in a large territory. Subsequently, an Expert Committee was constituted to evaluate the situation and propose tailored conservation strategies.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved include Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution, which must be interpreted in light of Article 21. Additionally, international conventions and norms that India is a party to should be considered, especially when they do not conflict with domestic laws. The courts are obligated to give due regard to international instruments and principles when interpreting domestic laws, particularly in cases involving human rights, the environment, and other related rights.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants argued that the declining population of the Great Indian Bustards (GIBs) presents a critical threat to the species’ survival. They emphasized the urgent need for conservation measures, including the installation of bird diverters to prevent collisions, a halt on new projects that could further endanger the GIBs, and the dismantling of power lines, wind turbines, and solar panels in critical habitats. Additionally, the appellants called for the implementation of predator-proof enclosures in breeding habitats, population control programs for dogs that pose a threat to the GIBs, and the establishment of no-grazing zones and restricted grazing zones in crucial habitats to protect the species. Furthermore, the appellants requested a prohibition on the use of insecticides and pesticides within a 5 km radius of critical habitats to safeguard the GIBs’ environment. They also sought the cooperation of state authorities, the sensitization of armed forces to the importance of GIB conservation, and collaboration with scientific bodies to enhance conservation efforts. The appellants proposed the appointment of an Empowered Committee to oversee and coordinate conservation activities effectively, ensuring the preservation and recovery of the GIB population In India.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents argued that the area for which conservation directions were issued was larger than the actual habitat of the Great Indian Bustards (GIBs). They contended that transitioning to non-fossil fuels and reducing emissions, as per international commitments under the Paris Agreement, would be challenging in the designated area due to its significant solar and wind energy potential. The respondents also claimed that undergrounding high voltage power lines in the area was technically unfeasible and that replacing renewable energy sources with coal-fired power could lead to pollution.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court analyzed the complex balance between environmental conservation, sustainable development, and the urgent need to protect endangered species like the Great Indian Bustards (GIBs). It emphasized the importance of judicial review based on expert consultation to make informed decisions on environmental policies. The court acknowledged the international obligations of India under various conventions and emphasized the need to align domestic laws with international principles, especially in cases concerning environmental protection and human rights.
In its judgment, the court modified the directions issued on April 19, 2021, regarding the conservation of GIBs. It substituted the previous directions with new measures, including appointing an Empowered Committee to oversee conservation efforts, sensitizing armed forces about GIB conservation, and declaring the GIBs as a national priority for conservation. The court also directed the continuation of specific conservation measures and project clearances granted earlier. The judgment aimed to strike a balance between preserving the GIB species and promoting sustainable development while complying with international obligations and expert recommendations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
