Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No.-000838 of 2019 |
| Diary Number | 20754/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on balancing endangered-species conservation with renewable-energy policy |
| Overrules / Affirms | Modifies 19.04.2021 blanket ban; reaffirms need for expert-informed environmental directions |
| Type of Law | Constitutional (Article 32); Environmental; Energy Regulation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that an unqualified injunction on overhead transmission lines over ~99,000 sq km of bustard habitat lacks a scientific basis and conflicts with renewable-energy obligations. Judicial policy choices of this magnitude must rest on domain expertise. Accordingly, the April 2021 order was modified and an expert committee was appointed. Its evidence-driven recommendations on habitat zoning, line-corridor design, undergrounding, rerouting and alternate mitigation must now be implemented within defined timelines. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners sought quashing of new projects and conversion of existing overhead lines to protect the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican. April 2021 order imposed blanket ban in priority areas and directed undergrounding or Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs). Respondents challenged feasibility and climate-impact. March 2024 order modified blanket ban, appointed expert committee. Committee submitted detailed mitigation and conservation roadmap. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Central and State Governments; MNRE, MoEFCC, CEA; Renewable-energy developers; Forest Departments |
| Persuasive For | High Courts; environmental regulators; energy policy-making bodies |
| Overrules | Part of interim order dated 19.04.2021 imposing blanket prohibition on overhead lines in ~99,000 sq km bustard habitat |
| Distinguishes | Catastrophic bans without domain input vs. evidence-based, committee-driven measures |
| Follows | Centre for Environmental Law, Godavarman Thirumulpad, U.P. Public Service Commission |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court confirms that broad environmental injunctions must be founded on scientific evidence; courts should appoint domain experts for nuanced directions.
- Expert committee’s habitat-zoning (14,013 sq km in Rajasthan; 740 sq km in Gujarat) and corridor-design measures are now binding.
- Blanket bans replaced by tiered mitigation: undergrounding/ rerouting of specified 33 kV–400 kV lines within two years; insulated aerial-bunched cables for 11 kV and below.
- No new overhead lines (above 11 kV) or RE projects >2 MW in revised priority areas; local community projects ≤2 MW exempted.
- CSR funds – companies must factor Corporate Environmental Responsibility under Companies Act 2013 for ex-situ/in-situ conservation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- April 2021 blanket prohibition lacked scientific basis and hindered India’s renewable-energy targets.
- Blanket undergrounding unfeasible: safety, technical, environmental downsides, higher AC losses.
- Courts ought to “conduct judicial review while relying on domain experts” (para 61).
- Appointment of a seven-member plus two invitee expert committee to balance GIB conservation with renewable obligations.
- Committee’s field visits and stakeholder consultations led to habitat rationalisation, corridor planning, line-specific mitigation and broader conservation measures.
- March 2024 order modified injunction, empowered expert committee; this judgment approves and enforces its recommendations.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Blanket ban essential to prevent bustard extinction; expert committee recommendations on lines/buffers must be fully implemented.
- Exclude limestone/mining, dismantle wind-turbine leases in priority areas; aerial-bunched cables for 11 kV.
Union of India & Ministries (MoEFCC, Power, MNRE)
- Blanket ban unworkable; need to honour Paris commitments and tap solar potential.
- Undergrounding infeasible; species decline predates electrification; alternative measures exist.
Renewable Generators (ACME, JSW, SPDA)
- Committee went beyond mandate; prohibition on >2 MW projects and area expansions unreasonable.
- Proposed site-specific safeguards and delegation to CEA under Section 68 Electricity Act preferred.
Wind Producers Association
- Wind projects differ from solar; BFDs more effective than undergrounding; seek exclusion of commissioned projects.
Factual Background
The writ petition challenged infrastructure-related threats to the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, invoking Article 32. Interim April 2021 order imposed a blanket ban on overhead power lines across ~99,000 sq km of priority areas and directed their undergrounding or marking with Bird Flight Diverters. Respondents petitioned to modify directions on feasibility and climate concerns. March 2024 order recalibrated the ban and constituted an expert committee to recommend precise conservation and energy-transmission measures. The committee’s September 2024 reports for Rajasthan and Gujarat now form the basis for binding implementation directives.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 32 Constitution: Jurisdiction to secure fundamental rights and issue writs for environmental protection.
- Electricity Act 2003, Section 68: Overhead lines require Government approval; conditions for installation and variation. Court declined further delegation to CEA for mitigation planning.
- Companies Act 2013, Section 135 & 166: CSR obligations extend to environmental protection; directors’ fiduciary duty “to protect environment.”
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Proposed inclusion of additional 657 sq km (Rasla-Degrai corridor) to maintain population connectivity and grazing grounds.
- Mandatory Bird Flight Diverters on all existing and future lines above 11 kV in critical zones.
- No new overhead lines (except 11 kV); aerial-bunched cables for ≤11 kV; prohibition on >2 MW solar/wind projects in additionally important areas.
Procedural Innovations
- First Supreme Court exercise to delegate detailed habitat-energy planning to a permanent, joint expert committee under judicial oversight.
- Defined committee remit across nine scientific, policy and stakeholder-engagement tasks.
- Binding timelines (two years) and multi-agency implementation monitoring by IG Wildlife, MoEFCC.
- Introduced model for balancing biodiversity conservation with energy transition obligations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms principle of expert delegation in environmental adjudication.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Modifies earlier Supreme Court order of 19.04.2021.