Environment — Wildlife Protection — Great Indian Bustard (GIB) Great Indian Bustard, a critically endangered species, is a flagship species of arid and semi-arid grasslands, and its conservation is intrinsically linked to preservation of grassland ecosystems and biodiversity. (Paras 4–6)

advocatemmmohan

Environment — Wildlife Protection — Great Indian Bustard (GIB)

Great Indian Bustard, a critically endangered species, is a flagship species of arid and semi-arid grasslands, and its conservation is intrinsically linked to preservation of grassland ecosystems and biodiversity.
(Paras 4–6)

---

Constitution of India — Art. 32 — Environmental protection

Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 can be invoked for enforcement of the right to environment and protection of endangered species, where State action or inaction threatens ecological balance and biodiversity.
(Paras 9–10)

---

Balancing conservation and sustainable development

Conservation of endangered species and promotion of renewable energy are not competing but complementary constitutional goals. Courts must adopt a holistic and balanced approach, avoiding foregrounding one objective at the cost of the other.
(Paras 14–15, 60–62)

---

Judicial review — Deference to expert bodies

Where issues involve complex scientific, technical, and ecological considerations, courts must rely on expert bodies and domain specialists. Sweeping judicial directions without adequate scientific basis are to be avoided.
(Paras 15, 60–62)

---

Power transmission lines — Environmental impact

Overhead transmission lines are a significant contributor to avifaunal mortality, particularly for large, low-fecundity species like the GIB, whose biological traits make them vulnerable to collisions.
(Paras 8(v), 22)

---

Undergrounding of power lines — Feasibility

Blanket directions for undergrounding high-voltage power lines are impractical due to technical limitations, safety risks, transmission losses, environmental consequences, and impact on renewable energy targets.
(Paras 14, 60–62)

---

Expert Committee — Constitution and role

Appointment of a multidisciplinary Expert Committee to recommend conservation and mitigation measures is appropriate where issues require reconciliation of wildlife protection with infrastructure and energy needs.
(Paras 15–18)

---

Priority Areas — Rationalisation

Identification and rationalisation of priority and revised priority areas for GIB conservation must be based on scientific assessment, habitat suitability, and connectivity, and not solely on administrative boundaries.
(Paras 24–25, 47–54)

---

Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) — Efficacy

In absence of conclusive scientific evidence regarding efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Bird Flight Diverters, their mandatory use cannot be directed as a universal mitigation measure.
(Paras 24(x), 33)

---

Corporate Social Responsibility — Environmental responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility under the Companies Act, 2013 inherently includes Corporate Environmental Responsibility. Protection of environment and endangered species is not charity but a constitutional and statutory obligation.
(Paras 35–39)

---

Polluter Pays — Species Best Interest

Where commercial activity threatens endangered species, the “Species Best Interest” standard and “Polluter Pays” principle require prioritisation of species survival over economic considerations.
(Para 39)

---

Held

Recommendations of the Expert Committee largely accepted. Blanket prohibition imposed by order dated 19.04.2021 recalled and replaced by calibrated, expert-driven mitigation and conservation measures.
(Paras 19, 46–64)

---

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW (with Paragraph Numbers)

I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT (Paras 1–8)

1. The case concerns conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and Lesser Florican, both critically endangered species (para 6).

2. GIB holds immense ecological, cultural, and historical significance, particularly in Rajasthan, where it is known as “Godawan” (paras 1–4).

3. Population decline is attributed to multiple factors including habitat loss, infrastructure expansion, climate change, predators, and overhead transmission lines (paras 8–8(v)).

---

II. INVOCATION OF ARTICLE 32 (Paras 9–10)

1. The writ petition sought urgent directions for:

   • emergency conservation measures; and

   • regulation of power infrastructure in critical habitats.

2. Tagged matters included challenges by renewable energy developers and issues relating to Bird Flight Diverters (para 10).

---

III. INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.04.2021 (Para 11)

1. Court imposed wide-ranging restrictions on overhead transmission lines across ~99,000 sq. km.

2. Directions included undergrounding where feasible and installation of bird diverters pending feasibility.

---

IV. APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION (Paras 12–14)

1. Union of India sought modification citing:

   • impracticality of blanket undergrounding;

   • adverse impact on renewable energy targets; and

   • international climate commitments (para 12).

2. Court acknowledged technical, environmental, and energy-security concerns (para 14).

---

V. ORDER DATED 21.03.2024 — SHIFT IN APPROACH (Paras 14–15, 60–62)

1. Court recalled blanket prohibition and emphasised:

   • need for expert-driven policy decisions;

   • dangers of judicial overreach in technical domains.

2. Conservation and climate mitigation were held to be interdependent goals (paras 60–62).

---

VI. CONSTITUTION OF EXPERT COMMITTEE (Paras 15–18)

1. A multidisciplinary Expert Committee comprising wildlife, forestry, and energy experts was constituted.

2. Its mandate included:

   • identification of priority areas;

   • mitigation of powerlines;

   • long-term conservation strategies; and

   • balancing renewable energy commitments (para 18).

---

VII. COMMITTEE FINDINGS (Paras 20–25)

1. GIB biology — slow breeding and maladaptive vision — makes collision mortality catastrophic (para 22).

2. Committee recommended:

   • revised priority areas;

   • powerline corridors;

   • selective undergrounding/rerouting;

   • rejection of blanket BFD usage pending scientific validation (paras 24–25).

---

VIII. OBJECTIONS BY POWER GENERATORS (Paras 26–34)

1. Developers objected to expansion of priority areas and restrictions on infrastructure.

2. Court declined to substitute expert assessment with judicial opinion (paras 34–36).

---

IX. CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY (Paras 35–39)

1. CSR is not limited to social welfare but includes environmental and ecological responsibility.

2. Corporations share constitutional duty under Article 51A(g) to protect wildlife.

---

X. PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS AND COURT’S ANALYSIS (Paras 41–54)

1. Petitioners sought inclusion of additional 657 sq. km area (Rasla–Degrai).

2. Court upheld Committee’s rationalisation based on habitat viability and feasibility, noting partial inclusion around Rasla (paras 49–54).

---

XI. RATIO DECIDENDI (Paras 60–64)

1. Courts must defer to expert bodies in environmental-technical matters.

2. Conservation measures must be evidence-based, proportionate, and balanced with sustainable development.

3. Blanket prohibitions without scientific backing are impermissible.