THE petitioners were fortunate in the date for this one when Time and circumstances came together for a seminal judgment indeed.
The date: March 21, 2024: the Vernal Equinox; the day many celebrate as ‘Jamshedi Navroze’, to welcome the advent of spring.
The judgment in the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. versus the Union of India & Ors. touches issues that are of vital importance, especially in the present time, apart from being very close to my heart.
The judgment deals with the issues of environment and climate, with particular reference to the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, both critically endangered birds. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was invoked under Article 32 to protect the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, both of whom are on the verge of extinction.
I do not intend to get into the nitty-gritty but would like to highlight some important issues flagged by the Supreme Court, especially some of India’s concerns and the international commitments made in its pursuit of global environmental goals.
The Supreme Court noted that there were significant factors bearing upon the dwindling numbers of the Great Indian Bustard as well as the low rate of reproduction among the existing population of these species: pollution, climate change, predators and competition with invasive species. Habitat loss and human predators are other factors.
The Supreme Court also red-flagged the overhead transmission lines as being another cause attributed to the dwindling population of this endangered species.
In this context, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 2019, seeking directions, including inter alia, to concerned respondents, to take all measures necessary for the protection of grasslands, the habitat of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican.
By an Order dated April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court, inter alia, imposed restrictions on the setting up of overhead transmission lines for the distribution of solar power in a large swathe of territory and appointed a committee for the feasibility of laying high voltage underground lines.
This, not surprisingly, caused problems for the concerned ministries, and on November 17, 2021, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change; the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy filed an interim application for the modification of the said Order dated April 19, 2021. Additional affidavits were filed, including by the Union of India.
The Supreme Court outlines the history of commitments made by India, including being a participant in the Kyoto Protocol, in force from February 16, 2005, and also touches upon the various policy measures and initiatives implemented by the government.
The judgment enumerates the relevant legislation passed and also several pronouncements of courts to combat climate change.
The judgment accepts that “it is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change”.
It enunciates that “this right and the right to a clean environment are two sides of the same coin… Without a clean environment which is stable and unimpacted by the vagaries of climate change, the right to life is not fully realised… The right to equality would undoubtedly be impacted”.
The Supreme Court also red flags how geographical factors would adversely impact the right to equality, in this context, depending upon where a citizen lives, in this vast and diverse country.
The Supreme Court also recognises and cautions that while giving effect to the right against climate change, courts must also be alive to other rights of affected communities such as the right against displacement and allied rights, stating inter alia that “India faces a number of pressing near-term challenges that directly impact the right to a healthy environment, particularly for vulnerable and Indigenous communities including forest dwellers.
“The lack of reliable energy supply for many citizens not only hinders economic development but also disproportionately affects communities.”
The Supreme Court sure has a tightrope to walk here, to balance diverse but equally important equities, to take care of all imperatives, and also to ensure that the policies adopted honour the country’s international obligations and commitments.
After hearing all parties, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Order passed on April 19, 2021 did indeed need modification, and accordingly modified it, stating inter alia that “a blanket direction for undergrounding high voltage and low voltage power lines of the nature that was directed by this court would need recalibration…
“Experts can assess the feasibility of undergrounding power lines in specific areas, considering factors such as terrain, population density and infrastructure requirements. This approach allows for more nuanced decision-making tailored to the unique circumstances of each location, ensuring that conservation objectives are met in a sustainable manner.” (Emphasis supplied)
The Supreme Court then, after taking suggestions from advocates appearing in the matter, appointed an ‘expert committee’ of concerned persons knowledgeable in the field, setting out the remit of the committee appointed, which included, inter alia, identification and measures to be adopted for the long term survival of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, and also to determine the scope, feasibility and extent of overhead and underground electric lines in areas identified.
The committee was given a time frame in which to complete the task set to it.
I consider this a seminal judgment for various reasons.
Firstly, the Supreme Court was given a tough task here, to decide which worthwhile cause should be given priority over the other: promotion, and more importantly, distribution, of solar power, or the protection of two species of birds critically endangered.
The Supreme Court walked that tightrope and pronounced a nuanced judgment, deciding that the formation of an expert committee, with a given remit, would perhaps be the best decision, rather than laying down any hard and fast rules.
True, the formation of an ‘expert committee’ does indeed toss the ball into the court of that committee, but what is heartening is that the Supreme Court has taken cognisance of these issues and ruled upon them!
This in itself will make the task of those concerned with nature and conservation easier, giving their fight both exposure and gravitas, bearing the imprimatur of the highest court in the land.
The judgment is extremely important in that it gives considerable attention and due recognition to the issues of climate change, sustainable development, and the conservation of endangered birdlife and, by extension, wildlife.
A judgment to gladden the hearts of all naturalists, conservationists and wildlife activists.
The Devil, as ever, is— and will be— in the implementation of these well-intentioned measures outlined by the Supreme Court. Let us hope that in this, the implementation matches the intentions.
