Conservation of Endangered Species M.K. Ranjitsinh v Union of India (Objections to the Committee Reports)

The case was instituted by environmentalist M.K. Ranjitsinh and others under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to seek urgent judicial intervention for the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, both of which are critically endangered. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 in 2019 to seek protection for the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a species found primarily in Gujarat and Rajasthan. By an interim order in 2021, the Court restricted the installation of overhead transmission lines on the migration path. In 2022, however, several Ministries appealed the decision, and the Court in 2024 modified the 2021 decision to loosen the total prohibition on the transmission line installation. (See case entry MK Ranjitsinh et al. v. Union of India et al. (Modification of April 2021 Judgment)) In doing so, the Court appointed an expert committee to suggest recommendations that strike a balance between conservation and development. The committee appointed in 2024 submitted reports for Rajasthan and Gujarat, identifying priority and non-priority areas where the states would implement in-situ and ex-situ conservation measures. Renewable Energy Generators, however, challenged the report on several grounds, including that some recommendations are not in line with India’s solar energy generation commitment and go beyond the committee's remit under the Court’s 2024 order. The Generators requested that the Expert Committee’s recommendations not be given effect. The Court held that entities engaged in power generation and transmission in both priority and non-priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat must remember that they share the environment with the GIB. It reiterated the “species best interest” standard, placing the survival of the species as the top priority. Further, the Court held that the “polluter pays” principle mandates that those responsible should bear the cost of the species’ recovery. Accepting the committee’s report, the Court issued directions to Gujarat and Rajasthan for their implementation.