Supreme Court Orders Protection of Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2021) INSC 217 (19 April 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 217
Judges: S. A. Bobde (Chief Justice of India), A.S. Bopanna J., and V. Ramasubramanian J.

Can India’s endangered bird species be saved from extinction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a public interest litigation aimed at protecting the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican. These birds are facing severe threats, primarily from collisions with overhead power lines. The Court’s order seeks to balance the need for power transmission with the urgent requirement to conserve these critically endangered species. The bench was composed of Chief Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation (PIL) by environmentalists concerned about the dwindling populations of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican. These birds are on the verge of extinction, with overhead power lines identified as a major cause of mortality due to collisions. The petitioners sought interim directions to protect these species in Rajasthan and Gujarat, including predator-proof fencing, controlled grazing, and restrictions on new overhead power lines, windmills, and solar infrastructure in critical habitats. They also requested the installation of diverters on existing power lines.

The petitioners highlighted that GIBs, one of the heaviest flying birds, have disappeared from 90% of their habitat, surviving only in parts of Rajasthan and Gujarat. The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) reported that approximately 1 lakh birds die annually due to collisions with power lines. A WII survey in the Thar region found 289 bird carcasses of about 30 species, including GIBs, along 80 km of power lines. The study estimated 3 bird mortalities/km/month for low-tension lines and 6 for high-tension lines. Between 2017 and 2020, six GIB mortalities were recorded in Thar, all due to high-tension lines.

The Ministry of Power, Union of India, acknowledged that GIBs lack frontal vision, making it difficult for them to detect power lines. Their heavy build prevents them from maneuvering quickly to avoid collisions. Low voltage lines often cause electrocution, while high voltage lines cause death due to collision.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court noted that the litigation was not adversarial but in the community’s interest, aimed at protecting endangered bird species. The Court referred to its previous observations in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2012) 3 SCC 277], emphasizing the shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric principles, where non-humans have intrinsic value. The Court also cited Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund – India vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 234], which highlighted the importance of sustainable development and the need to protect endangered species, linking it to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to life. The Court also referred to the doctrine of “public trust” as enunciated in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388], stating that the State is a custodian of natural resources for the benefit of the public and flora and fauna.

Legal Framework

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article protects the right to life, which the court interpreted to include the protection and preservation of endangered species.
• Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013: This section mandates corporate social responsibility for companies meeting certain financial criteria.
• Section 166(2) of the Companies Act, 2013: This section requires company directors to act in good faith for the protection of the environment, among other things.
• Section 2(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Defines “environment” to include the inter-relationship between water, air, land, and living creatures.
• Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 (CAF, 2016): This act provides for the utilization of funds for measures to mitigate threats to wildlife.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Submissions:

• The petitioners argued that overhead power lines are the biggest threat to the survival of GIBs, leading to frequent collisions and fatalities.
• They cited reports from the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) indicating high bird mortality rates due to power lines.
• They contended that undergrounding of power lines is a feasible solution and referred to instances where it had been successfully implemented, such as in Uttarakhand and Delhi, and for the safety of Greater Flamingos in Kutch.
• The petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to install diverters for the powerlines.
• They emphasized the need for habitat restoration and predator-proof fencing to protect the eggs of these birds.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents, including the Ministry of Power, acknowledged the vulnerability of GIBs to power lines.
• They argued that undergrounding high-voltage lines is not technically feasible due to high costs, high downtime for repairs, non-availability of cables at 765 Kv level, and an increase in the number of joints.
• They contended that the instances of underground power lines cited by the petitioners were not comparable due to variations in area, terrain, and distance.
• They stated that high-voltage lines cause death due to collisions and not electrocution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether steps are required to be taken to protect the endangered species of birds, particularly the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican.
2. What measures should be taken with respect to existing overhead power lines and future installations to mitigate the threat to these birds?
3. How should the cost of these measures be allocated and managed?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court relied on T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2012) 3 SCC 277] to emphasize the importance of an ecocentric approach, where the intrinsic value of non-human species is recognized.
• The Court cited Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund – India vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 234] to underscore the constitutional obligation to protect endangered species and the principles of sustainable development.
• The Court referred to M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388] to reinforce the State’s duty as a custodian of natural resources, which includes the protection of wildlife.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican from extinction. The Court recognized the significant threat posed by overhead power lines, which cause bird deaths through collisions and electrocution. The Court also considered the principles of sustainable development and the constitutional obligation to protect the environment and endangered species. The Court aimed to strike a balance between the need for power transmission and the conservation of these rare birds.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as completely prohibiting overhead power lines, but rejected this approach due to technical and economic constraints. The final decision was reached by balancing the need for environmental protection with the practical challenges of power transmission.

The Court’s reasoning included:

• The immediate need to protect the endangered bird species.
• The technical feasibility of undergrounding power lines, which was not universally applicable.
• The financial implications of the measures, which needed to be addressed through various means, including corporate social responsibility and government funds.
• The importance of balancing development with conservation.

The Court stated, “the priority shall be to save the near extinct birds.” It also noted, “Environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to ecocentric.” Further, the Court observed, “Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only the human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve a species becoming extinct.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The bench unanimously agreed on the need to protect the endangered species.

The decision introduces a balanced approach, combining immediate measures (diverters) with long-term solutions (undergrounding where feasible). It also emphasizes the need for a technical evaluation committee to assess feasibility on a case-to-case basis.

Key Takeaways

• Immediate installation of diverters on existing overhead power lines in priority and potential GIB habitats.
• Undergrounding of all low voltage powerlines in priority and potential GIB habitats.
• Conversion of existing low voltage overhead powerlines into underground powerlines in priority and potential GIB habitats.
• Undergrounding of high-voltage power lines in the priority and potential habitats of GIB, specifically those mentioned in the order, is mandated.
• A committee is formed to assess the feasibility of undergrounding high-voltage power lines on a case-to-case basis.
• Fencing of breeding grounds to protect eggs from predators.

The judgment is expected to have a significant impact on future infrastructure projects in the habitats of endangered birds, requiring careful consideration of environmental impacts. It also highlights the importance of corporate social responsibility and the use of government funds for conservation efforts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed:

• Installation of diverters on existing overhead power lines in priority and potential GIB habitats.
• A study to be conducted for the feasibility of laying future transmission lines underground.
• Laying of all low voltage powerlines underground in priority and potential habitats of GIB.
• Conversion of existing low voltage overhead powerlines into underground powerlines in priority and potential GIB habitats.
• Conversion of high-voltage power lines in the priority and potential habitats of GIB, specifically those mentioned in the order, into underground power lines.
• Formation of a committee to assess the feasibility of undergrounding high-voltage power lines on a case-to-case basis.
• Fencing of breeding grounds to protect eggs from predators.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the protection of endangered species is a constitutional imperative, and the State must take all necessary measures to safeguard them, even if it involves balancing development needs with environmental concerns. This case reinforces the principle of ecocentrism and the public trust doctrine, emphasizing the State’s role as a custodian of natural resources. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in the M.K. Ranjitsinh case is a significant step towards protecting the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican from extinction. By mandating the installation of diverters, undergrounding of power lines where feasible, and forming a committee for technical evaluation, the Court has balanced the need for power transmission with the urgent requirement to conserve these critically endangered species. The judgment underscores the importance of ecocentrism, sustainable development, and the State’s duty to protect the environment and wildlife.