Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No.-000838 – 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 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Modifies prior Supreme Court orders dated 19.04.2021 and 21.03.2024 |
| Type of Law | Constitutional (Article 32); Environmental Law; Energy/Infrastructure Regulation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that sweeping prohibitions on overhead lines across 99,000 sq km require recalibration through scientific expertise rather than a priori injunction. Judicial review must balance non-negotiable conservation goals for the Great Indian Bustard with India’s renewable-energy commitments. Inherent technical and safety constraints on underground cables, transmission losses, and climate-change imperatives counsel against undifferentiated bans. An expert committee with multidisciplinary representation was therefore appointed to make site-specific recommendations. The Supreme Court adopted the committee’s rationalisation of priority areas, power-corridor design, timelines and differentiated mitigation for various voltage levels, while directing prompt implementation within two years. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petition under Article 32 filed in 2019 seeking emergency measures for critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican. Interim order (19.04.2021) banned new overhead lines over ~99,000 sq km and directed undergrounding. Stakeholders challenged feasibility; Court’s 21.03.2024 order modified blanket ban and constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee. Committee reports (Sept & Nov 2024) proposed rationalised priority areas and tiered mitigation; developers and renewable-energy bodies raised objections; Supreme Court heard and disposed on 19 Dec 2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts, central/state regulators and renewable-energy developers implementing transmission projects in priority areas |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, environmental tribunals, policy-making bodies |
| Overrules | The April 2021 blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines in GIB habitats |
| Follows | Precedents endorsing expert committees for technical environmental adjudication (e.g., Godavarman, Centre for Environmental Law) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court reaffirms that complex environmental-energy disputes require expert-committee recommendations rather than undifferentiated judicial injunctions.
- A two-tier priority‐area rationalisation (Rajasthan: 14,013 sq km; Gujarat: 740 sq km) for GIB habitats has been adopted, including modest additions and exclusions based on habitat suitability.
- No new overhead lines (except 11 kV and below) or RE projects > 2 MW within revised priority areas; differentiated mitigation for existing lines by voltage.
- Mandatory power‐corridor design and optimisation of route commonality for dedicated RE evacuation lines.
- Two-year timeline imposed for undergrounding, rerouting and other mitigation measures.
- Court directs additional empirical studies on bird-flight diverters before wholesale deployment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Interim Order & Feasibility Concerns
- 19.04.2021 order banned overhead lines over ~99,000 sq km and mandated undergrounding within 1 year.
- Stakeholders (MoEFCC, MNRE, Power Ministry) filed IA citing technical, safety, economic and climate-policy infeasibility.
-
2024 Modification & Committee Appointment
- 21.03.2024 order recalibrated the ban; underscored need to balance GIB conservation with renewable obligations.
- Appointed a seven-member expert committee with special invitees from electricity authorities.
-
Expert Committee Mandate & Process
- Scope: feasibility of overhead/underground lines, habitat protection, climate-change resilience, power-line corridors, stakeholder engagement, global best practices.
- Extensive site visits, stakeholder workshops and global precedent review.
-
Committee Recommendations & Judicial Adoption
- Rationalised priority areas (Rajasthan 14,013 sq km; Gujarat 740 sq km) with critical enclave protections.
- Tiered mitigation: undergrounding/rerouting of 33 kV, 66 kV+ lines; insulated cables for 11 kV and below; power-corridor design.
- No blanket BFD mandate; awaits efficacy studies by WII and parallel agency pilot.
- Two-year clock for phased implementation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Insist on strict priority-area expansion (including Rasla enclave) and comprehensive mitigation (BFDs, undergrounding) for all voltage levels.
- Oppose any new overhead lines > 11 kV, RE projects > 2 MW and mining in protected zones.
Respondents (Union & Renewable-Energy Bodies)
- Challenge technical and economic feasibility of mass undergrounding; highlight climate-policy and RE-target imperatives.
- Advocate expert-driven, site-specific safeguards over sweeping injunctions; stress existing project rights.
Factual Background
- Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican populations declined sharply; overhead powerlines a major threat.
- Petition filed in 2019 under Article 32, seeking emergency conservation measures (BFDs, underground lines, project moratoriums).
- Supreme Court’s April 2021 order broadly prohibited overhead lines in ~99,000 sq km and directed undergrounding within 1 year.
- Stakeholder applications led to March 2024 modification and appointment of an expert committee.
- Committee reports (Sept & Nov 2024) proposed balanced mitigation; Supreme Court disposed detailed objections on 19 Dec 2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 32 Constitution: Right to enforce fundamental duties for environmental protection.
- Electricity Act 2003, Section 68: Prior approval and conditions for overhead lines; exemptions for lines ≤ 11 kV.
- MoEFCC/MNRE regulations and international commitments under UNFCCC/Paris Agreement inform sustainable-development mandate.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate judicial dissent or concurrence; committee’s one dissenting member argued for inclusion of a 657 sq km Rasla enclave, prohibition of new overhead lines > 11 kV, and mandatory BFDs for all lines in non-priority corridors.
Procedural Innovations
- Supreme Court’s direct appointment of a multidisciplinary expert committee with electricity and wildlife experts.
- Mandated field visits, stakeholder workshops and global precedent analysis prior to final directions.
- Phased, evidence-based implementation timetable incorporated into judicial order.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Supreme Court modifies its own sweeping ban in favour of expert-driven measures
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reliance on expert committees in environmental jurisprudence (Godavarman; WWF-India)
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Revises and refines earlier orders (19.04.2021; 21.03.2024)