Published On: June 07, 2026
Authored By: Trisha Chakraborty
Heritage Law College, Kolkata
Abstract
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., decided by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on March 21, 2024, represents a watershed moment in environmental and constitutional jurisprudence. The judgment established the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Simultaneously, the Court recalibrated its earlier blanket restriction on overhead power lines, a decision made to protect the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard, and appointed an expert committee to develop a site-specific approach that balances biodiversity conservation with India’s renewable energy commitments.[1]
I. Introduction
The intersection of environmental conservation and climate action presents one of the defining challenges of our era. Nations must simultaneously protect endangered species and transition to renewable energy sources to mitigate climate change. M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. grapples with this fundamental tension. The case emerged from a public interest litigation seeking protection for the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a species whose population has declined precipitously due to habitat loss and collisions with overhead power lines. The Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment not only addresses the specific conservation question but also elevates climate change itself to the status of a fundamental constitutional right, fundamentally reshaping Indian environmental law.
II. Case Details
Case Name: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 INSC 280
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon’ble D.Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice of India), Hon’ble J.B. Pardiwala, Hon’ble Manoj Misra
Date of Judgment: March 21, 2024
Nature of Petition: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Relevant Constitutional Provisions: Article 32 (Enforcement of Fundamental Rights), Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 48A (Directive Principles-Duty to Protect Environment), Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty-Protection of Environment)
III. Facts of the Case
The Great Indian Bustard is one of India’s most critically endangered avian species. Once found across the Indian subcontinent, the GIB has experienced catastrophic population decline over recent decades. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the species’ conservation status has progressively deteriorated: from “threatened” in 1988 to “endangered” in 2008, and finally to “critically endangered” in the present classification. Today, fewer than 150 individual GIBs are estimated to survive in the wild.[2]
The primary threats to the GIB include habitat loss and, critically, collisions with overhead power transmission lines. Research cited during the litigation indicated that overhead power lines are the single largest cause of GIB mortality. More broadly, a 2018 Power Line Mediation report documented that approximately 100,000 bird deaths occur annually across various species due to power line collisions.
In response to an earlier public interest petition, the Supreme Court issued a significant interim order dated April 19, 2021. This order imposed a blanket restriction on overhead transmission power lines across approximately 99,000 square kilometers identified as “priority” and “potential” habitat for the GIB. The 2021 order effectively mandated that all overhead transmission power lines in this vast territory be laid underground.
However, in 2024, the Union Government filed for modification of this blanket ban, citing technical infeasibility, prohibitive costs, and concerns that the restriction would undermine India’s renewable energy transition. The government emphasized that implementing the 2021 order would impede India’s commitment under the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) to achieve 500 gigawatts of non-fossil fuel energy capacity by 2030.[3]
IV. Legal Issues Before the Court
1. Protection of Critically Endangered Species: What measures are constitutionally required to protect the Great Indian Bustard from extinction?
2. Scope of Earlier Order: Does the April 2021 order imposing blanket restrictions on overhead power lines remain appropriate given India’s international climate commitments?
3. Expert Committee: Is an expert committee necessary to monitor biodiversity, collect data on GIB populations, and assess protective measures?
4. Balancing Conservation and Climate Action: Can a balanced approach be developed that simultaneously protects the Great Indian Bustard and enables India’s renewable energy transition?
V. Arguments of the Parties
A. Petitioner’s Arguments (M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors.)
Critical Extinction Risk: The petitioners emphasized that the Great Indian Bustard faces imminent extinction, with fewer than 150 birds remaining in the wild. According to the IUCN Red List, the species holds the status of “critically endangered,” the highest level of threat short of actual extinction.[4]
Constitutional Duty: The petitioners argued that preserving critically endangered species constitutes a non-negotiable constitutional obligation under Article 48A (Directive Principle of State Policy requiring the State to protect and improve the environment) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty of citizens to protect wildlife). These provisions establish that wildlife conservation is not merely discretionary but constitutionally mandated.
Power Lines as Primary Threat: Citing the 2018 Power Line Mediation report, petitioners contended that overhead power lines represent the single largest contributor to GIB mortality. The report documented over 100,000 annual bird deaths across various species attributable to collisions with power lines. Petitioners argued that this is not speculative but empirically documented.
Insufficiency of Alternative Measures: Petitioners dismissed alternative protective measures such as bird flight diverters as inadequate. They argued that these devices lack demonstrated effectiveness in preventing collisions for species like the GIB and cannot prevent population collapse.
B. Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India & Ors.)
Technical Infeasibility: The Union Government argued that the blanket undergrounding order is technically impossible to implement. Underground transmission of high-voltage power cables requires specialized infrastructure not currently available at scale in India.
Economic and Commercial Constraints: The government emphasized that undergrounding transmission lines across 99,000 square kilometers would be prohibitively expensive. The costs would strain the government’s ability to fund renewable energy infrastructure development.
Climate Commitments Jeopardized: The respondent highlighted that the 2021 order, if fully implemented, would undermine India’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement and UNFCC. India has committed to achieving 500 gigawatts of non-fossil fuel energy capacity by 2030-a target critical to global climate goals. The blanket undergrounding requirement would slow renewable energy deployment, potentially forcing reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, thereby exacerbating the very climate crisis threatening all species including the GIB.[5]
Proposed Alternative: The Union proposed a more targeted approach: underground cables would be installed only in identified critical and priority regions, while bird flight diverters would be deployed across larger potential habitats. This approach, the government argued, would balance conservation with renewable energy development.
VI. Judgment of the Supreme Court
The three-judge bench delivered a landmark judgment that both affirmed conservation principles and acknowledged practical constraints requiring a recalibrated approach.
Recognition of Conservation Imperative: The Court acknowledged the critical importance of protecting the Great Indian Bustard and recognized the species’ perilous conservation status. The Court affirmed the validity of its earlier April 2021 order in principle, recognizing that extraordinary measures may be necessary to prevent extinction of critically endangered species.
Climate Change as Fundamental Right: In a historic pronouncement, the Court declared that the “right to be free from the adverse impact of climate change” constitutes a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The Court grounded this recognition in Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life), and the broader constitutional commitment to human dignity and environmental protection. The Court further observed that climate change impacts fall disproportionately on marginalized communities lacking resources to adapt to environmental shifts, thereby implicating both equality and dignity rights.[6]
Critical Recalibration: The Court held that the blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines, while scientifically motivated, lacked sufficient flexibility to account for technical and economic realities. The complete undergrounding of all transmission lines across 99,000 square kilometers was deemed not sustainable without undermining India’s renewable energy transition and climate commitments.
Proportionality and Site-Specific Analysis: Recognizing the complex tension between biodiversity conservation and climate action, the Court determined that both concerns are constitutionally significant and require balanced treatment. The Court acknowledged the technical complexity, cost factors, commercial unavailability of certain technologies, and safety risks inherent in desert terrain undergrounding projects.[7]
Expert Committee Appointment: To achieve this balance, the Court appointed an expert committee tasked with: identifying and distinguishing between “priority” and “potential” habitat areas for the GIB; determining where underground cable installation is necessary and feasible; recommending placement of bird flight diverters in appropriate locations; and collecting ongoing data on GIB population trends and power line collision incidents. This expert-driven, site-specific approach replaced the blanket restriction with a more nuanced framework.
VII. Ratio Decidendi
The primary legal principles established are as follows:
(1) The right to be free from adverse impacts of climate change constitutes a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, grounded in Articles 14, 21, and constitutional principles of environmental protection and human dignity.
(2) While critically endangered species merit extraordinary protective measures, such measures must be calibrated to account for competing constitutional objectives, including climate action and renewable energy development.
(3) Where conservation and climate action appear to conflict, courts must employ proportionality analysis and site-specific assessment rather than blanket prohibitions.
(4) Expert committees, composed of scientific and technical specialists, are appropriate instruments for developing nuanced environmental protection frameworks that balance multiple constitutional imperatives.[8]
VIII. Obiter Dicta
Beyond the primary holding, the Court issued important observations regarding the constitutional status of environmental protection. The Court emphasized that environmental protection and climate action are not peripheral constitutional concerns but integral to the realization of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and dignity. The Court further noted that the disproportionate impact of climate change on marginalized communities renders climate protection an equality issue, not merely an environmental or economic concern.
IX. Critical Analysis
A. The Landmark Recognition of Climate as a Fundamental Right
The judgment’s elevation of climate change protection to fundamental right status represents a watershed in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. This move aligns India with emerging global jurisprudence recognizing climate protection as a human right. By connecting climate action to Articles 14, 21, and constitutional principles of dignity, the Court has established that environmental protection is not discretionary but constitutionally mandated. This framework strengthens India’s legal infrastructure for climate litigation and provides individuals and groups with standing to challenge government action (or inaction) on climate grounds.
However, the recognition of climate as a fundamental right also raises complex questions. Climate protection inherently involves trade-offs: renewable energy development may impact some species while protecting the global climate on which all species depend. The judgment acknowledges this tension but provides limited guidance on how to resolve conflicts between specific species protection and broader climate goals. This ambiguity may fuel future litigation.
B. Recalibration of the Earlier Order: Pragmatism or Dilution?
The Court’s modification of the April 2021 blanket ban reflects pragmatic recognition of technical and economic constraints. The judgment acknowledges that implementing the blanket undergrounding order across 99,000 square kilometers would be technically infeasible and cost-prohibitive, potentially undermining India’s renewable energy transition and climate commitments. This pragmatism is arguably appropriate: law should be calibrated to what is achievable.
However, critics argue that the recalibration dilutes protection for the critically endangered GIB. By shifting from a blanket ban to a site-specific approach dependent on expert committee assessments, the judgment introduces discretion into what was previously a clear legal rule. This discretion potentially creates space for developmental pressures to override conservation concerns in borderline cases. The effectiveness of the expert committee approach depends entirely on the committee’s independence, expertise, and commitment to conservation, questions the judgment does not definitively resolve.[9]
C. The Tension Between Conservation and Climate Action
The judgment grapples with a genuine conceptual dilemma: protecting an individual species through measures that constrain renewable energy deployment could ultimately harm all species by exacerbating climate change. The Court’s resolution, that both concerns warrant constitutional protection and must be balanced, is conceptually sound but operationally challenging. The judgment does not provide clear standards for determining when renewable energy development should be prioritized over specific species protection measures, leaving this determination to the expert committee.
This deference to expert assessment is arguably appropriate, as such questions involve technical and scientific judgment beyond the traditional scope of judicial expertise. However, it also means that specific conservation outcomes will depend on the composition and methodology of the expert committee, introducing an element of uncertainty into what was previously a clearer legal landscape.
D. Implications for Future Environmental Litigation
The judgment establishes that Indian courts will now evaluate environmental cases through a framework that incorporates climate considerations, species protection, and development goals as co-equal constitutional concerns. This expands the scope of environmental litigation beyond discrete local impacts to encompass global climate implications. Environmental activists may cite this judgment to challenge development projects on climate grounds; simultaneously, the judgment’s acknowledgment of competing interests gives courts greater flexibility in crafting remedies that balance conservation with development.
E. The Role of Expert Committees in Environmental Governance
By appointing an expert committee rather than issuing specific binding directives, the Court has effectively shifted governance responsibility from itself to a specialized body. This reflects appropriate institutional humility—acknowledging that courts lack the technical expertise to determine optimal environmental protection standards. However, it also creates accountability gaps. Expert committees, while valuable, may lack the democratic accountability and transparent decision-making processes that characterize judicial proceedings. The judgment does not specify the committee’s decision-making procedures, oversight mechanisms, or accountability frameworks.
X. Conclusion
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. represents a pivotal moment in Indian environmental and constitutional law. By elevating climate change protection to fundamental right status, the Court has provided robust constitutional grounding for climate litigation and environmental protection. Simultaneously, by recalibrating the blanket undergrounding order and appointing an expert committee, the Court has acknowledged that environmental protection, while constitutionally imperative, must be balanced against other constitutional objectives including climate action and sustainable development.
The judgment reflects sophisticated understanding of the tensions inherent in contemporary environmental challenges. Species protection and climate action are not mutually exclusive but deeply interconnected: unchecked climate change threatens all species including the GIB, yet measures taken to prevent climate change may impact specific species. The Court’s response—constitutional elevation of climate protection combined with site-specific, expert-driven assessment of conservation measures—represents an attempt to honor both values.
However, the judgment also leaves critical questions unresolved. The effectiveness of the expert committee approach depends on implementation details not specified in the judgment. The standards for distinguishing “priority” from “potential” habitat and for determining when renewable energy development should override specific bird protection measures remain to be developed through the committee’s work. These unresolved questions will likely generate future litigation and require ongoing judicial clarification.
Ultimately, M.K. Ranjitsinh represents a mature and nuanced approach to environmental governance, recognizing that constitutional protection for both climate action and species conservation requires thoughtful calibration rather than absolute rules. This framework will likely shape environmental jurisprudence globally, as other jurisdictions grapple with similar tensions between species protection and climate mitigation.
References
[1] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 280 (Supreme Court of India, March 21, 2024)
[2] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (describing GIB population decline and IUCN classification)
[3] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (detailing India’s renewable energy commitments)
[4] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (emphasizing critical extinction risk)
[5] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (linking blanket ban to climate commitments)
[6] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (establishing climate change as fundamental right)
[7] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (acknowledging technical and economic constraints)
[8] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (establishing principles regarding climate rights and expert assessment)
[9] M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India, (noting discretion introduced by site-specific approach)
