Published on: 04th March 2026
Authored by: Mayank Pant
Symbiosis Law School
Case Title: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 INSC 280; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019
Court: In the Supreme Court of India (Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Name of Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
Date of Judgment: March 21, 2024
Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions/Acts
Constitution of India:
 Article 14: Right to Equality
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
 Article 48A: Directive Principle on Protection of Environment
 Article 51A(g): Fundamental Duty to protect the natural environment.
The Wild Life Protection Act of 1972: Schedule I of the act aims to keep the Great Indian Bustard safe.
The Great Indian Bustard is a special bird and it is, in big trouble so we need to protect it. The Wild Life Protection Act of 1972 is helping to safeguard the Great Indian Bustard because it is an endangered species.
The Wild Life Protection Act of 1972 and its Schedule I are working together to save the Great Indian Bustard.
Brief Facts:
Critical Status of the GIB: The Great Indian Bustard is nearing functional extinction, with fewer than 150 individuals remaining globally.
Primary Threat: High-voltage overhead power lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat are a major cause of death, as the birds’ large body mass and limited frontal vision lead to frequent collisions.
Initial Judicial Mandate (2021): The Supreme Court originally ordered all power lines in a 99,000 sq. km habitat zone to be moved underground to protect the species.
Government Opposition: The Union of India challenged this, citing that undergrounding high-voltage lines (above 66kV) is technically impossible and too expensive.
Energy Infrastructure Conflict: The habitat overlaps with India’s most critical regions for solar and wind energy production.
The “Green vs. Green” Dilemma: The case creates a direct conflict between protecting local biodiversity (saving the GIB) and fulfilling global climate goals (renewable energy transition under the Paris Agreement).
Issues Involved:
Whether the blanket mandate for undergrounding transmission lines is technically and economically feasible.
Whether the people of India have a fundamental right against the adverse effects of climate change under the Constitution.
How to balance the localized conservation of an endangered species with the national and global imperative of mitigating climate change.
The extent of judicial review in matters involving complex environmental and technical policy.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The Precautionary Principle requires immediate and strict emergency measures, including undergrounding lines and dismantling infrastructure in critical habitats, to prevent the GIB’s irreversible extinction.
- The protection of a “Schedule I” endangered species is a non-negotiable legal duty that must override commercial or energy interests.
- Existing bird diverters are often inadequate or poorly maintained, necessitating more permanent physical safeguards like undergrounding
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Climate change is a global existential threat that demands a rapid transition to non-fossil fuels; blocking solar projects in this region would necessitate more coal power, further damaging the environment.
- Undergrounding high-voltage lines is technically unfeasible over long distances due to joint vulnerabilities, safety risks to farmers, and significantly higher transmission losses.
- The cost is prohibitive, estimated at four to five times higher than overhead lines, which would make renewable energy economically unviable.
- The GIB’s decline is multi-factorial (low birth rate, habitat loss, predation) and began decades before electrification, meaning undergrounding alone will not save the species.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court recalled its blanket mandate for undergrounding power lines in the 99,000 sq. km area. The Court recognized that while the GIB must be protected, conservation efforts must not sacrifice the broader environmental goal of mitigating climate change. The Court emphasized that a “stable climate” is a prerequisite for the realization of all fundamental rights. It adopted a balanced approach, directing the transition from a rigid judicial order to an expert-driven policy.
Critical Analysis
The judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) marks a seminal shift in Indian environmental jurisprudence, moving beyond the “Right to a Clean Environment” established in the 1990s to a specialized “Right against the Adverse Effects of Climate Change.”
- The Constitutionalization of Climate Justice:
 By anchoring this new right within the “Golden Triangle” of Articles 14 and 21, the Court has transitioned climate change from a policy aspiration to a justiciable fundamental right. The Court’s recognition that climate change disproportionately impacts marginalized communities—thereby violating the Right to Equality (Article 14)—demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of “Intersectionality” in environmental law. This provides a powerful precedent for future litigation where state inaction on carbon emissions can be challenged as a breach of constitutional duty.
- Resolving the “Green vs. Green” Paradox:
This case represents a rare judicial encounter with the “Environmental Conflict Paradox,” where two valid ecological goals (species protection vs. renewable energy) are in direct opposition. Historically, Indian courts have often adopted a “Biocentric” approach, prioritizing immediate wildlife protection. However, the 2024 Bench adopted a Sustainable Development framework, acknowledging that a “stable climate” is a prerequisite for all biological survival. The Court effectively ruled that protecting a species cannot occur in a vacuum if the resulting policy exacerbates global warming, which would ultimately destroy the very habitat the species relies upon. - Judicial Restraint and Technical Deference:
The recall of the 2021 blanket undergrounding mandate signifies a pragmatic “Course Correction.” It reflects a “Techno-Legal” maturity, where the judiciary acknowledges the limitations of its own expertise. By delegating the technical feasibility assessment to a multi-disciplinary Expert Committee, the Court upheld the Principle of Separation of Powers, ensuring that legal goals are married to administrative reality. - Intergenerational Equity:
The Obiter Dicta regarding Intergenerational Equity reinforces the “Public Trust Doctrine.” The Court has signaled that the current generation holds the environment not as owners, but as trustees for future citizens. In 2026, as the legal community evaluates the transition to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and other overhauled statutes, this judgment stands as a reminder that the Constitution remains a “Living Document” capable of evolving to meet the existential threats of the 21st century.
Ratio Decidendi:
- New Fundamental Right:
The Indian Constitution, Articles 14 and 21 now says that people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change. This is a positive step because climate change has detrimental effects and even threatens our ability to live a decent life. Climate change is a problem and the right, against the adverse effects of climate change is imperative measure .
- Ecological Sustainability:
When we think about the environment and people have ideas the Court has to find a new way of looking at things, which is called Ecological Sustainability. This means the Court cannot just focus on the earth and forget about people or just focus on people and forget about the earth. The Court has to find a balance and reject ideas that’re only about the earth or only, about people, which are very extreme ways of thinking about Ecological Sustainability.
- Technical Deference:
 The judiciary has to listen to the experts when it comes to technical feasibility. This is so they do not make rules that the technical experts think are impossible to follow or that will actually harm the environment. The judiciary needs to give in to the experts on technical feasibility issues. This way the technical experts can make sure that the rules are good, for the environment and that people can actually follow them. The technical experts know what is technically possible. The judiciary should trust them on technical feasibility matters.
Obiter Dicta:
The Right to Equality, which’s Article 14 is very important. The Court said this because climate change affects the marginalized communities and the indigenous tribes the most. These are the people who have the amount of resources so they get hit the hardest by climate change and the Right to Equality is crucial for them. The Court thinks that the Right to Equality is key when it comes to climate change and its impact, on marginalized communities and indigenous tribes.
People think of energy as a good thing for the environment but it is also a smart way for a country to be in control of its own energy needs so solar energy is a good investment for a country to make to be independent when it comes to energy and that is what solar energy is all about it is about solar energy being a strategic investment, in the energy needs of a nation.
When we think about what’s fair today we have to consider Intergenerational Equity. The people, in charge of making decisions the judges say that Intergenerational Equity is very important. We need to look at Intergenerational Equity. Think about how the things we do now will affect people in the future. Intergenerational Equity is a part of making sure everyone is treated fairly.
Final Decision:
The Union of India asked to make some changes. This was granted. The Court got rid of the rules from 2021 and replaced them with new rules that are more specific which is what they decided in this 2024 judgment. The Court told the Expert Committee to give their report by July 2024. This means that the Court is now allowing people to work on energy again but they are also making sure that the Great Indian Bustard is protected by people who really know what they are doing the experts who are leading the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard.
