Case Note & Summary
The judgment arose from a public interest writ petition filed by environmentalists seeking to protect the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican, two bird species on the verge of extinction due to collisions with overhead power lines. The petitioners filed an interim application requesting directions to the States of Rajasthan and Gujarat to undertake measures such as predator-proof fencing, controlled grazing, and, crucially, to prohibit the installation of overhead power lines and further construction of windmills and solar infrastructure in priority habitats. They also sought the installation of bird divertors on existing power lines and the undergrounding of future power lines in these areas. The court noted that the litigation was non-adversarial and centered on community interest, with the petitioners highlighting studies from the Wildlife Institute of India indicating significant bird mortality, including that of the Great Indian Bustard, due to power line collisions. The Ministry of Power admitted that the birds' lack of frontal vision and heavy build made them vulnerable to such collisions. The legal issues involved the application of environmental principles such as ecocentrism, sustainable development, and the public trust doctrine under Article 21 of the Constitution, which imposes a duty on the State to protect endangered species. The court referenced precedents, including T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund – India v. Union of India, to emphasize the shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric approaches and the State's obligation to conserve wildlife. In its analysis, the court balanced the need for species protection with practical considerations, acknowledging the respondents' arguments about the technical and financial feasibility of undergrounding high-voltage power lines. It considered evidence of undergrounding being implemented in other cases in India but recognized that it might not be universally applicable. The court ultimately directed that undergrounding of new power lines be undertaken where technically feasible in the habitats of the endangered birds, and that bird divertors be installed on existing power lines in other areas. It also highlighted the financial responsibility of the State and Central Governments, referencing a scheme that provides central assistance for the Great Indian Bustard, and suggested that costs could be passed on to consumers with regulatory approval. The decision favored the petitioners by granting interim relief to protect the species, while allowing for a balanced approach to power transmission.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Endangered Species Protection - Ecocentrism and Sustainable Development - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21 - The court considered the protection of the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican from extinction due to overhead power lines, emphasizing the shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric principles. It held that Article 21 protects not only human rights but also imposes an obligation to preserve species, and the State has a duty under the public trust doctrine to conserve natural resources for flora and fauna. The court referenced precedents on ecocentrism and sustainable development to support this view. (Paras 4-5) B) Environmental Law - Interim Relief - Undergrounding of Power Lines and Bird Divertors - Not mentioned - The court addressed the petitioners' application for interim directions to protect the endangered birds by undergrounding power lines and installing bird divertors. It noted the respondents' contention that undergrounding high-voltage lines is not technically feasible in all cases due to cost and other factors, but referred to instances where it has been done in India. The court balanced conservation with development, directing that undergrounding be undertaken where technically feasible and bird divertors be installed elsewhere. (Paras 6-8) C) Environmental Law - Financial Responsibility - State and Central Government Duty - Centrally Sponsored Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats Scheme, 2009 - The court highlighted the financial responsibility of the State and Central Governments to protect endangered species, referencing a scheme that provides 100% central assistance for the Great Indian Bustard. It held that expenses for preservation, such as undergrounding power lines, should be borne by the governments or passed on to consumers with regulatory approval. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether interim directions should be issued to protect the Great Indian Bustard and Lesser Florican from extinction due to collision with overhead power lines, including undergrounding of power lines and installation of bird divertors, and the feasibility and cost implications thereof.
Final Decision
The court directed that undergrounding of new power lines be undertaken where technically feasible in the habitats of the endangered birds, and that bird divertors be installed on existing power lines in other areas, balancing conservation with development.
Law Points
- Environmental justice
- ecocentrism
- sustainable development
- public trust doctrine
- right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- duty of State and Central Governments to protect endangered species
- balancing conservation with development
