Published On: October 15, 2026
Authored By: Madhvi Madaan
National Law University, Sonipat
1. Case Title
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.[1]
2. Citation
2024 SCC OnLine SC 441 / (2024) 6 SCC 323
3. Court
Supreme Court of India
4. Bench
D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ.
5. Date of Judgment
March 21, 2024 (detailed reasons and signed judgment delivered April 19, 2024)
6. Relevant Statutes / Key Provisions
Constitution of India: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19(1)(g) (Freedom of Trade and Profession), Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 48A (Directive Principle on Protection of Environment and Wildlife), and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty to Protect the Natural Environment).[2]
Statutory Frameworks: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972;[3] Electricity Act, 2003;[4] Energy Conservation Act, 2001.[5]
7. Brief Facts
The Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps), a heavy-flying terrestrial bird endemic to the arid grasslands of western India, faces severe population decline, with estimates indicating fewer than 150 surviving individuals. The primary cause of unnatural mortality is collision with high-voltage overhead transmission lines traversing its primary habitat in the Thar Desert across Rajasthan and Gujarat. Due to their poor frontal vision and large body mass, these birds are unable to detect power lines in time to alter their flight path.
In 2019, wildlife conservationist M.K. Ranjitsinh and other environmentalists filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking urgent directions to protect the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican from extinction.
In response, the Supreme Court issued an interim order in April 2021 directing the mandatory undergrounding of all low- and high-voltage transmission lines across designated “priority” and “potential” habitats. The order also mandated the immediate installation of bird diverters on existing overhead lines until undergrounding was complete.
In 2023, the Union of India, through the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), along with private renewable energy developers, filed applications seeking modification of the April 2021 order. The Union argued that:
1. Overhead grid networks in Rajasthan and Gujarat constitute the primary corridor for evacuating power generated from massive solar and wind farms.
2. Mandatory undergrounding of high-voltage (220 kV and 765 kV) power lines across thousands of kilometres was technically unviable according to global standard engineering norms, severely prone to electrical faults in desert terrains, and prohibitively expensive.
3. Halting power grid infrastructure in this region directly compromised India’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement[6] to achieve 500 GW of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030 and reach Net-Zero carbon emissions.
Recognising the friction between species conservation and macro-level climate change mitigation, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud modified the 2021 order, constituted an Expert Committee to re-evaluate technical feasibility on a site-specific basis, and formally articulated a standalone fundamental Right to be Free from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change under the Indian Constitution.
8. Issues Involved
Issue 1 (Constitutional Recognition): Whether the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution implicitly guarantee a distinct fundamental Right to be Free from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change.
Issue 2 (Inter-Environmental Conflict Resolution): How the judiciary can reconcile the local imperative to protect a critically endangered species under the Public Trust Doctrine with the national and global imperative to transition toward clean energy to mitigate climate change.
Issue 3 (Judicial Restraint & Institutional Competence): What the proper limits of judicial intervention are when issuing administrative and technical directives regarding national infrastructure policy, energy grid management, and wildlife conservation without preliminary scientific feasibility assessments.
9. Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
The Public Trust Doctrine & Species Extinction: The State holds natural resources and endemic wildlife in trust for the public. Allowing transmission line infrastructure to decimate the remaining population of the Great Indian Bustard constitutes a direct breach of this fiduciary duty.
Application of the Precautionary Principle: Environmental jurisprudence mandates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty or high economic costs should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. High-voltage overhead lines present a proven, lethally documented threat to the species.
Primacy of Statutory Wildlife Protection: Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Schedule I species like the Great Indian Bustard enjoy the highest degree of legal immunity. Energy policy goals, while important, cannot override the statutory and constitutional obligation to prevent species extinction.
Respondents’ Arguments:
Technical and Financial Unfeasibility: Converting high-voltage transmission lines (220 kV and above) into underground cables across vast stretches of shifting sand dunes in the Thar Desert is technically unsupported by global engineering standards, risks massive power outages, and incurs exorbitant costs that would stall renewable projects.
Macro-Environmental Harm & Climate Mitigation: Delaying clean energy generation harms the broader environment by prolonging reliance on fossil fuels. A delay in transitioning to clean power accelerates global warming, which ultimately destroys the broader ecosystems that all species, including the Great Indian Bustard, rely upon for survival.
Equity and Fundamental Human Rights: Climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable socio-economic classes, rural populations, and agrarian communities through extreme weather events, water scarcity, and agricultural disruptions. Stalling renewable infrastructure infringes on these populations’ rights to clean energy, health, and a stable environment under Articles 14 and 21.
Judicial Overreach: The blanket mandate issued in 2021 invaded the domain of the executive and specialised regulatory bodies by imposing technical engineering decisions without domain expertise or environmental impact assessments.
10. Judgment
A. Recognition of the Fundamental Right Against Climate Change
The Supreme Court held that Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution encompass a distinct, standalone fundamental Right to be Free from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change.
The Article 21 Nexus: The Court observed that while it had previously recognised the “Right to a Clean Environment” in landmark cases like Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[7] and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana,[8] climate change represents a distinct, multifaceted threat. Without a stable global and local climate system, the core components of Article 21, such as the right to health, clean air, food security, clean water, and livelihood, cannot be realised.
The Article 14 Nexus: The Court established that climate impacts are distributed unequally. Vulnerable populations, indigenous communities, coastal inhabitants, and low-income agrarian workers suffer disproportionately from climate-induced disasters. The inability of the State to mitigate climate change or facilitate a timely clean energy transition directly exacerbates structural inequality, violating the guarantee of equal protection under Article 14.
International Human Rights Alignment: The Court explicitly tied its constitutional interpretation to global developments, citing UN General Assembly Resolution 76/300 (which recognised the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment)[9] and India’s international commitments under the UNFCCC[10] and the Paris Agreement.
B. Recall of the Blanket Mandate and Creation of an Expert Committee
The Court recognised that its April 2021 blanket undergrounding directive was overbroad and practically unviable for large-scale energy infrastructure. Consequently, the Court:
1. Recalled the blanket mandatory undergrounding requirement across “potential” habitats.
2. Constituted a high-level Expert Committee consisting of independent ecologists, power grid engineers, wildlife experts, and government representatives.
3. Tasked the Committee with evaluating the priority areas of the Great Indian Bustard, determining the precise technical feasibility of undergrounding versus overhead construction on a line-by-line basis, and overseeing the deployment of high-specification bird diverters.
11. Ratio Decidendi
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India implicitly guarantee a fundamental Right to be Free from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change.
When a direct conflict arises between local ecological preservation (protecting a species) and macro-level climate change mitigation (expanding renewable energy), the Court must apply an integrated Sustainable Development framework rather than an uncompromising, single-issue approach. The judiciary should refrain from issuing broad, non-expert administrative directives on complex technical and energy infrastructure matters; instead, it must rely on scientific evaluations conducted by specialised expert bodies.
12. Obiter Dicta
Reconceptualising the Public Trust Doctrine: The Court noted that state trusteeship over natural resources in the twenty-first century carries a dual obligation. On one hand, the State must act as a trustee for local biocentric preservation (saving endemic species like the Great Indian Bustard). On the other hand, the State must act as a trustee for climate stability by facilitating systemic decarbonisation. Isolated species protection cannot succeed if global warming degrades the entire biome.
Environmental Justice & Renewable Energy Access: Clean energy is not merely an economic or industrial policy; it is an instrument of environmental justice that protects marginalised populations from the worst harms of climate change.
Judicial Restraint: Courts must recognise institutional limitations when dealing with technical, polycentric problems where a decision in one area (e.g., stopping power lines) produces unintended collateral consequences in another (e.g., accelerating carbon emissions and climate disruption).
13. Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the applications for modification filed by the Union of India and renewable energy developers. The mandatory undergrounding directive issued in the April 2021 order was recalled with regard to potential habitat zones.
A specialised Expert Committee was formally established to evaluate transmission line routes individually, assess engineering viability, and recommend appropriate conservation measures (including bird diverters and selective undergrounding in critical priority pockets).
The Court affirmed and declared that citizens possess a distinct fundamental Right to be Free from the Adverse Effects of Climate Change under Part III (Articles 14 and 21) of the Constitution of India.
References
[1] M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 6 SCC 323 (India).
[2] India Const. arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 48A, 51A(g).
[3] Wild Life (Protection) Act, No. 53 of 1972 (India).
[4] Electricity Act, No. 36 of 2003 (India).
[5] Energy Conservation Act, No. 52 of 2001 (India).
[6] Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.
[7] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598 (India).
[8] Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 577 (India).
[9] G.A. Res. 76/300, The Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment (July 28, 2022).
[10] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107.
