Introduction
The instant matter before the Apex Court deals with the critical issue of protection and conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, pertaining to the significant concern of their dwindling population owing to death by collision with power transmission lines. The Supreme Court, in exercising its responsibility towards environmental protection under Article 48A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, delivered a comprehensive judgment focusing on wildlife conservation and sustainable development.
Facts of the Case
The case was initiated through a Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh and others, highlighting the critical endangerment of the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican. The petitioners brought to light that these birds, particularly the GIB, face extinction due to frequent collisions with overhead power transmission lines in their natural habitats across Rajasthan and Gujarat. The population of GIB had drastically reduced to approximately 150 birds globally, with the majority found in India’s desert regions.
Issues Before the Court
The primary issues before the Supreme Court encompassed: The constitutional obligation of the State to protect endangered species under Article 48A and Article 51A(g). The necessity to balance wildlife conservation with infrastructural development, particularly concerning power transmission. The implementation of measures to prevent the extinction of the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican. The feasibility of underground power transmission lines in priority areas.
Arguments
Petitioner’s Contentions
The learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that immediate intervention was necessary to prevent the extinction of these species. They argued that the installation of overhead power lines in GIB habitats constituted a severe threat to the species’ survival. The petitioners advocated for the underground laying of power transmission lines in priority habitats and the installation of bird diverters in other areas.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India and other respondents, while acknowledging the need for conservation, highlighted technical and financial constraints in implementing underground power lines. They contended that complete undergrounding of transmission lines would significantly impact power infrastructure development and economic considerations.
Judgment and Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court delivered a balanced judgment addressing both conservation needs and developmental requirements. The Court directed:
The mandatory undergrounding of power transmission lines in priority GIB habitats in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Installation of bird diverters on existing overhead lines. Formation of a technical committee to monitor implementation. Regular progress reports from concerned authorities.
The Court emphasized that sustainable development must account for the preservation of endangered species, applying the principle of proportionality to balance ecological concerns with infrastructural needs.
Impact of the Judgment
The judgment marks a significant milestone in India’s environmental jurisprudence, establishing a precedent for proactive species conservation. It reinforces the constitutional mandate of environmental protection while providing practical solutions for infrastructure development. The ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to preserving India’s biodiversity heritage through actionable conservation measures.
Analysis and Legal Implications
The Court’s decision represents a progressive interpretation of environmental law, harmonizing development with conservation. It establishes that: Environmental protection is an integral part of sustainable development. State authorities have a positive obligation to protect endangered species. Technical and financial constraints must be balanced against conservation imperatives. Preventive measures are essential for species conservation.
Conclusion
The judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh vs Union of India (2024) stands as a landmark decision in environmental law, exemplifying the judiciary’s role in wildlife conservation. It provides a comprehensive framework for species protection while acknowledging developmental needs. The Court’s balanced approach ensures that India’s commitment to biodiversity conservation is upheld while maintaining infrastructural progress. This judgment will serve as a crucial precedent for future environmental conservation cases, particularly those involving endangered species protection and sustainable development.
The directive for implementation monitoring and regular progress reports ensures continued attention to this critical conservation issue, making this judgment not merely declaratory but practically enforceable. This decision reinforces India’s commitment to international conservation obligations while establishing domestic mechanisms for their fulfillment.
