Summary
Articles 14 and 21 recognise a right against the adverse effects of climate change. Addressing Great Indian Bustard conservation alongside renewable-energy needs, the Court recalled the 2021 blanket injunction over priority and potential habitats, subject to parameters to be set by a new expert committee. Technical feasibility, ecological impacts and India’s climate commitments required location-specific assessment. Conservation undertakings became directions, existing committee-approved clearances were preserved, and further consideration was scheduled after the expert report.
Issues
- Whether the Constitution recognises a right against the adverse effects of climate change.
- Whether blanket undergrounding and transmission-line restrictions should continue across the identified habitats.
- What expert assessment and conservation safeguards should replace the earlier directions.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaThe rights to equality and life support a distinct right against the adverse effects of climate change, including its disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities. Other affected rights must also be considered. (¶¶ 20, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Articles 48A and 51A(g), Constitution of IndiaThe State’s environmental responsibility and citizens’ environmental duty inform the protection afforded through justiciable fundamental rights. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaIn the species-conservation writ proceeding, earlier blanket directions were recalibrated through expert assessment and enforceable conservation measures while retaining further judicial consideration. (¶¶ 4, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74)
Held
- The right against adverse effects of climate change is recognised by Articles 14 and 21. Climate-related threats to health, food, water, housing and livelihoods implicate life and equality, particularly where poorer, indigenous and other vulnerable communities have less capacity to adapt. Giving effect to that right also requires attention to displacement and other affected constitutional rights. (¶¶ 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- The problem required protecting both the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard and the wider environment through climate mitigation. Neither goal should be sacrificed to the other. Renewable-energy development and India’s international climate commitments were relevant to evaluating conservation relief, alongside the continuing, non-negotiable need to preserve the species. (¶¶ 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61)
- A general prohibition across the vast identified territory and blanket undergrounding were inappropriate on the materials before the Court. Technical, safety, ecological and cost constraints, and the multiple causes of species decline, required location-specific evaluation. Judicial review in such environmental-policy matters should draw on domain expertise and avoid sweeping directions without an adequate evidentiary basis. (¶¶ 51, 52, 61, 62)
- A seven-member expert committee with two special invitees was constituted. Its remit included assessing overhead and underground lines in priority habitats; conservation, habitat restoration and adaptive management; stakeholder consultation; monitoring; and measures in priority and potential areas. It could recommend additional protected areas and further measures to the Court. (¶¶ 64, 65, 66, 69)
- The committee was to assess bird-diverter efficacy scientifically and, if appropriate, specify their required quality, parameters and number with regard to Central Electricity Authority standards. Installation of inadequate diverters could not substitute for effective conservation. (¶¶ 66, 67)
- The injunction imposed by the 19 April 2021 order over priority and potential areas was recalled, subject to suitable parameters the new committee might prescribe. The earlier directions were substituted by this judgment; clearances already granted following the former committee’s recommendations were expressly preserved. (¶¶ 68, 72)
- The Union and concerned ministries were directed to implement their conservation undertakings, including habitat restoration, breeding and predator protection, monitoring and community engagement, and to continue existing conservation measures. The committee was requested to report through the Union by 31 July 2024, with further consideration listed for the second week of August 2024. These were the dates fixed in this judgment. (¶¶ 70, 71, 72, 74)
Result
Directions issued modifying and substituting the 19 April 2021 directions. Blanket injunction recalled subject to expert parameters; new expert committee constituted, conservation undertakings directed to be implemented and existing committee-approved project clearances preserved. Further consideration scheduled after the report.