CASE SUMMARY: M.K. RANJITSINH V. UNION OF INDIA (2024)

CASE DETAILS

• Case Title: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
• Citation: (2024) 6 SCC 348 | 2024 INSC 280 | 2024 SCC OnLine SC 441
• Court: Supreme Court of India (Original Jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
• Bench: Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ.
• Date of the Judgement: March 21, 2024

INTRODUCTION AND CASE OVERVIEW

The jurisprudence in relation to environmental rights in India has seen considerable development over the past four decades, evolving from the conventional nuisance tort in common law principles to the constitutional right of Article 21. In M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. (2024),[1] a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India handed down an unprecedented judgment wherein the Right to be Free from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change has been held to be a new and distinct fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India[2].

Socio-ecological Conflict of Green vs. Green: It is a judgment that has dealt with the difficult socio-ecological conflict, which is known as Green vs. Green and is a conflict between the need for immediate protection of an endangered species of Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps) on the one hand and environmental needs for renewable energy infrastructure such as wind energy and solar energy on the other hand.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Ecological Threat to the Great Indian Bustard:

The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) is categorized as “Critically Endangered” in the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as well as Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.[3] Originally a species inhabiting the arid grasslands of western India, the population of GIBs has been reduced to less than 150 birds with the entire population existing only in two areas: Kutch area of Gujarat state and Thar area of Rajasthan state.

According to the research carried out by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), the high-voltage overhead transmission lines have been identified as the most significant proximate cause of deaths of GIBs. Owing to poor frontal vision and massive body weight, the birds are not able to see these overhead wires until too late and consequently crash into these wires resulting in death.

The 2021 Blanket Order​ The 2021 Blanket Order:

​ In 2019, former Wildlife Administration Officer, Dr. M.K. Ranjitsinh and other conservationists have initiated public interest litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution for urgent directions in preserving the GIB population[4].

 On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court of India gave an interim order stating that all existing and future low and high-voltage power lines covering about 99,000 sq.km (marked as “Priority” and “Potential” GIB habitats) must be buried underground. For cases involving high-voltage power lines in which burying the power lines proved to be technically impossible, the installation of bird diverters pending technical feasibility assessment was ordered by the Court. 

Application for Modification:

Towards the end of 2021, the Interim Applications for Modification by the Union Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), as well as private renewable energy developers, were made for modifying the mandate of undergrounding power lines given on April 19, 2021. 

The Interim Applications claimed that: 

1. The undergrounding of the high-voltage grid lines (132 kV and above) through the desert was technically impossible and posed substantial line losses and extreme cost to do so.
2. The priority and potential habitat regions coincided with the richest regions in terms of solar and wind resources. Such a mandate of undergrounding has caused a complete halt in renewable power projects necessary to meet India’s goal of installing 500 GW non-fossil fuel energy generation capacity by 2030 and Net-Zero by 2070.

CORE LEGAL ISSUES

1. Rights framework under the Constitution of India: Is the inclusion of a fundamental right to protection against the effects of climate change implied under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)?
2. Harmonisation of Ecological Interests: In what manner will the judiciary balance the conflict between localised biodiversity conservation (saving an endangered species) and larger scale climate mitigation (development of renewable energy network)?
3. Institutional Competence & Scope of judicial review: Will the judiciary lay out broad engineering guidelines for energy infrastructure development, or will technical feasibility analysis be delegated to specialized multidisciplinary expert organizations?

SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:

1. Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties: The Petitioners argued that the State had a duty as per Article 48A of Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)[5] to protect and improve the environment coupled with the fundamental duty of every citizen as stated in Article 51A(g) to show compassion towards living beings.[6]
2. Irreversible Extinction Risk: The petitioners argued that the construction of overhead power lines within the designated priority GIB zones would inevitably lead to total extinction of the species. Given the fragile nature of the species, the survival of the species should prevail over any commercial energy project.
3. Precautionary Principle: The Petitioners, citing environmental law principles (Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India), argued that in case of threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty cannot be a ground for postponing cost-effective measures against environmental degradation[7].

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents (Union of India & Developers):

1. Impossibility of Performance: As part of their submissions to back their position, the Respondents brought forth evidence to prove that there was no prior experience anywhere in the world regarding undergrounding of high voltage cables (above 400 kV) over large distances. Such a practice entailed huge risks, including significant downtime during the course of maintenance.
2. International Climate Commitment: It was argued that the development of renewable energy is one of the important commitments in the international environment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)[8] and the Paris Agreement.[9] The suspension of the development of solar plants in Rajasthan and Gujarat was a clear breach of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by India.
3. Proportionate Balancing: It was stated that any action which was required to conserve species should be balanced by socio-economic interests of millions of Indians needing power supply.

JUDGEMENT AND RATIO DECENDI

In its judgment, the Supreme Court unanimously revised its interim directions of April 2021 in such a way that it substituted the undergrounding mandate with a regulation by an expert committee.

1. Recognition of Right to be Free from Climate Change:

The Court enhanced the ambit of Article 21, which states that right to life cannot exist in the absence of stable climatic conditions. As per CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, even though earlier Courts have identified the “right to clean environment”, in the context of growing risk of climate change, a separate right ‘Right to be Free from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change’ needed to be recognized.

The Court stated that climate change undermines basic human rights, which includes the rights to health, clean water, food and shelter, affecting particularly the vulnerable sections. Also, Article 14 was invoked to highlight that lack of adaptation to the impact of climate change results in further economic and social inequalities.

2. Integration of Clean Energy into Human Rights Jurisprudence:

​The Court laid down that access to sustainable and renewable energy was inherently connected with climate rights. Abandoning fossil fuel is not just an administrative decision but a human right imperative. Consequently, judicial directions should not be allowed to immobilize the infrastructure necessary to move towards a system of zero-carbon energy sources.

3. Refusal of Blanket Judicial Directives:

Considering the practical limitations of judicial supervision, the Court referred to its 2021 directive that mandated undergrounding for the whole 99,000 sq. km area. It was recognized that the Court did not possess specific technical knowledge in evaluating electrical engineering feasibility over large geographical regions.

4. Appointment of the Expert Committee:

The Court established a specialized 7-member Expert Committee comprising technical engineers, wildlife biologists, and government officials. The responsibilities of the Committee included:

• Fixing of the exact contours of the “Priority GIB Habitat.”
• Evaluating the technical and economical feasibility of undergrounding of power lines in each segment individually.
• Establishing criteria where overhead lines with high-quality bird diverters would coexist safely with the birds.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

1. Shift in Constitutional Case Law:

 The M.K. Ranjitsinh decision is groundbreaking in international environmental case law. While international treaties and agreements such as the Paris Agreement are primarily aimed at public international law and obligations of states, the Supreme Court of India successfully domesticated climate rights into constitutional duties. By detaching the “right to a clean environment” from anti-pollution measures, and treating climate change as a separate threat, the Supreme Court created a foundation for future climate litigation in India

2. Resolving the “Green vs. Green” Paradox:

Previously, the case law concerning the environment in India has mainly consisted of “Brown vs. Green” cases, where there was a conflict between economic development or industry expansion and the preservation of nature. The M.K. Ranjitsinh decision has forced the Court to reconcile two ecological interests: micro-ecological preservation (protection of endangered species) and macro-ecological mitigation (reduction of greenhouse gas emissions).

The decision showcases a sophisticated application of the Principle of Sustainable Development. Instead of a zero-sum game, the Court has understood that halting renewable energy projects to protect endangered species will only lead to increased global climate change, which will, in turn, lead to extinction of GIBs.

3. Judicial Restraint and Institutional Competence:

This decision shows judicial restraint at its best. By returning to its 2021 directive and acknowledging that implementation of a directive is impossible without technical considerations, the Court showed willingness to adjust its decisions in light of the evidence of infeasibility. Relying on the multi-disciplinary committee to carry out the mapping returns power to its rightful holders and restores the separation of powers. 

CONCLUSION

In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India established a groundbreaking precedent by declaring that protection against climate change is a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution. Balancing the need for species preservation with the necessity for national transition to renewable energy, the Court moved away from prohibitive environmental jurisprudence to constitutional environmentalism.

REFERENCES

[1] M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) 6 SCC 348.

[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 14, art21.

[3] Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, sch I.

[4] Constitution of India 1950, art 32.

[5] Constitution of India 1950, art 48A.

[6] Constitution of India 1950, art 51A(g).

[7] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.

[8] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107 (UNFCCC).

[9] Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) 3156 UNTS 101.