Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar disposed of petitions seeking measures to protect the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican from habitat pressures and mortality linked to power transmission infrastructure and directed time-bound implementation of an expert committee’s conservation and mitigation plan. The Court fixed revised priority areas at 14,013 sq. km in Rajasthan and 740 sq. km in Gujarat, ordered immediate rollout of in-situ and ex-situ conservation steps, accepted a powerline corridor proposal, and required mitigation—including undergrounding, rerouting and related measures—to be completed within two years, with 250 km of identified critical lines in Rajasthan to be undergrounded within the same period. It also held that corporate social responsibility necessarily includes environmental responsibility, noting that companies cannot portray themselves as socially responsible while disregarding wildlife and ecosystems, and that corporations, as legal persons, share the Article 51A(g) duty to protect the environment and show compassion for living creatures.

The petition, filed in 2019 under Article 32, sought directions for conservation and recovery of the GIB, including installation of bird diverters, an embargo on sanctioning new projects in and around critical habitats, and oversight through an empowered committee. The Court issued interim directions on 19.04.2021 restricting overhead transmission lines over about 99,000 sq. km, appointing a three-member committee to assess feasibility of high-voltage undergrounding, and directing installation of bird diverters on existing overhead lines pending consideration of conversion; where feasible, undergrounding was to be completed within one year.

Also Read: S. 482 CrPC | High Courts Cannot Quash Cheque Dishonour Cases By Pre-Trial Probe Into Debt Or Liability: Supreme Court

In November 2021, the Ministries concerned moved an interlocutory application seeking modification, citing feasibility and sectoral implications. By order dated 21.03.2024, the Court modified the earlier directions and constituted an expert committee, reasoning that the decision on conversion involved environmental policy and required domain expertise, and that the blanket prohibition needed recall and recalibration. The committee submitted a Rajasthan report on 03.09.2024 and, after a further direction dated 07.11.2024, a Gujarat report. The Court considered objections by renewable energy developers and petitioners’ additional measures, including proposals on corridors, BFDs, and undergrounding timelines, before issuing final directions.

The Court stated: “Committees have been traditionally accepted by this Court, and the same should be done in the instant case.” It recorded its position on the nature of the power sector submissions: “We have made it clear to Mr. Mukerjee that the issue arising for consideration relating to problems caused by transmission lines have got nothing to do with the source of generation of power, be it thermal, hydro, solar or wind. In any event of the matter, as the Committee has not considered the distinction between solar and wind generations, we are not inclined to consider the submissions at this stage.”

On routing and corridor-based solutions beyond the revised priority area, the Court recorded: “It is suggested that mitigation measures must be undertaken for the areas outside the revised priority area. For this purpose, it is recommended that all future lines be routed through power line corridors.” It then stated: “As regards the suggestion to provide a powerline corridor even with respect to areas outside the revised priority area, we are of the opinion that the Committee has identified that GIB movements are majorly confined to the Revised Priority area, in which two corridors have already been proposed by the Expert Committee to meet the objective.”

The Court directed optimisation of common stretches, stating: “However, we direct that in the cases of dedicated lines starting from different Renewable Energy (‘RE’) Pooling stations, but terminating at a common Grid Pooling station, the routes shall be optimised in such a way that they share a maximum common stretch to the extent possible. Equally, in case of lines starting from different RE plants, but terminating at a common RE Pooling station, their routes may be optimised in such a way that they also share a maximum common stretch to the extent possible. There shall be a direction to the concerned authorities to ensure this requirement.”

On corporate responsibility within the conservation framework, the Court stated: “The legal formation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India is intended to mark a paradigm shift from voluntary philanthropy to statutory obligation. Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, Parliament institutionalized this duty by mandating companies to meet specific financial thresholds espousing social responsibility. This provision effectively codifies the principle that corporate profit is not solely the private property of shareholders but is partly owed to the society that enables its generation. The magic of legitimacy is in the perspective that private property is a trust.”

 It added: “This statutory mandate redefines the traditional role of corporate governance. Historically, a director's primary duty was to maximize value for shareholders. However, Section 166(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 dismantled this narrow view by imposing a broader fiduciary duty. Directors are now legally mandated to act in good faith not just for members, but for the "best interests of the company, its employees, the shareholders, the community, and for the protection of environment." This crucial expansion recognizes that a corporation is an organ of society, and its "social" responsibility extends to the wider community impacted by its operations.”

The Court further stated: “The definition of "community" within the CSR framework has been expanded to explicitly include the natural world, cementing the link between social welfare and environmental health. Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013 enumerates permissible CSR activities, specifically listing "ensuring environmental sustainability, ecological balance, protection of flora and fauna, animal welfare, and conservation of natural resources." By categorizing these ecological activities as "social" responsibility, the law acknowledges that as human beings, we cannot “own” or “use” environment for “our purpose”. The corporate duty must evolve from merely protecting the shareholders to protecting the ecosystem that we all inhabit.”

It then recorded: “Therefore, the corporate definition of "Social Responsibility" must inherently include "Environmental Responsibility." Companies cannot assert to be socially responsible while ignoring equal claims of the environment and other beings of the ecosystem. The Constitution of India, under Article 51A(g), imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures." A corporation, as a legal person and a key organ of society, shares this fundamental duty. CSR funds are the tangible expression of this duty. Consequently, allocating funds for the protection of environment is not a voluntary act of charity but a fulfilment of a constitutional obligation.”

On endangered species protection and the stated direction for CSR deployment, the Court recorded: “The obligation to protect endangered species is paramount.” It then stated: “Where corporate activities such as mining, power generation, or infrastructure threaten the habitat of endangered species, the "Polluter Pays" principle mandates that the company bears the cost of species recovery. CSR funds must, therefore, be directed towards ex-situ and in-situ conservation efforts to prevent extinction.” The Court added: “The non-renewable power generators operating in the priority as well as non-priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat must always remember that they share the environment with the Godawan, the Great Indian Bustard and must undertake their activities as if they are guests in its abode.”

The Court issued final directions stating “we direct as under” and fixed the revised priority areas by directing that “the revised priority area for Rajasthan… shall be 14,013 sq. kms., and the revised priority area for Gujarat… shall be 740 sq. kms. The measures recommended… for in-situ and ex-situ conservation of GIB… shall be implemented forthwith,” that “recommendations… with respect to the monitoring of GIB… shall be given effect immediately,” and that the “conduct of long-term studies on the effects of climate change on GIB must be conducted.”

On transmission and distribution infrastructure, the Court accepted the recommendation “for providing a power corridor of up to 5 km width… at a distance of 5 km or more to the south of the southern-most enclosure of Desert National Park,” and accepted the recommendation “negating the necessity for Mitigation of existing and future power lines of 11 kV and below… in the 100-metre buffer around the settlement.” It approved that “restrictions as stipulated… on future renewable energy projects within the Revised Priority Areas of Rajasthan are approved,” accepted “immediate undergrounding of 80 km of 33 kV line in Rajasthan,” accepted “Mitigation of 33 kV lines in the revised Priority Area of Rajasthan,” and directed that “rerouting of certain specific existing lines of 66kV and above… shall be done in a time-bound manner.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses MSA Global’s Appeal, Upholds Stay On ICC Arbitration In Oman-India Border Security Dispute Over New Delhi Seat And Co-Arbitrator Non-Disclosure

“All the mitigation measures such as undergrounding, rerouting… should be started immediately and completed within two years from the date of our order,” and further directed route optimisation so that, for dedicated lines and for lines from different RE plants, routes “share a maximum common stretch to the extent possible,” with “a direction to the concerned authorities to ensure this requirement. The competent authority will engage with the issue of BFDs and take appropriate action, based on scientific analysis, for its deployment,” and that “the competent authority will ensure the undergrounding of 250 km of critical power lines identified by WII in Rajasthan… not exceeding more than 2 years.”

In addition, while addressing implementation responsibility, the Court directed that “the Inspector General, Wildlife Division, MoEFCC, Government of India, as a duty-bearer, will be responsible for overseeing and implementing the recommendations… within two years from the date of our order.” It also directed that “other recommendations of the Committee… will be implemented as soon as possible. With these directions, the writ petition(s) and civil appeal are disposed of. Pending applications… are also disposed of accordingly.”

Case Title: M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India & Others.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1472.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 838 of 2019 (with connected matters).

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.