The Bustard case and the clash between conservation and clean energy

The Great Indian Bustard is close to extinction. Fewer than 200 birds remain in the wild, and most of them live in the arid grasslands of Rajasthan and Gujarat. The species is among the heaviest flying birds in the world and depends on large, undisturbed grasslands to survive. Its numbers have declined due to shrinking habitat, predation, invasive species and a very low reproductive rate. The primary threat today is collision with overhead power lines that cut across its remaining habitat.

The Supreme Court has been examining this problem since 2019 through the case M K Ranjitsinh and others v Union of India. The case began as a plea to protect the critically endangered bird and has now evolved into a detailed review of the relationship between conservation goals and energy infrastructure. The Court’s orders in 2021 and 2024, and the ongoing hearings in 2025, show how India is trying to protect a near-extinct species without obstructing renewable energy deployment in the same regions.

Western Rajasthan and Kutch are among the country’s most important wind and solar zones. The same areas are the last refuge of the Great Indian Bustard. This geographical overlap has created a difficult policy question. 

The scientific and ecological context

The Great Indian Bustard is a Schedule I species under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. It is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on Migratory Species and Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The International Union for Conservation of Nature classified it as critically endangered in 2011. Its historic range once covered much of the subcontinent, but only ten per cent of that remains today.

Grasslands are its natural habitat. These landscapes support insects, reptiles, seeds and grasses that make up the bird’s diet. The species spends most of its time on the ground and takes flight only for short distances. It has poor frontal vision. Its large body prevents quick manoeuvring in the air. This makes overhead transmission lines a major cause of mortality.

According to the Power Line Mitigation Report of 2018, around one lakh birds die every year due to power line collisions in India. For the Great Indian Bustard, this risk is far greater. Even low-voltage lines are dangerous because electrocution is common where the phase separation distance is narrow. High voltage lines do not electrocute, but cause death due to collision.

The species has a low reproductive rate. A female lays only one egg at a time. This limits natural recovery even in protected habitats. Free-ranging dogs, poaching, habitat loss and climate change add further pressure. In this situation, every death due to power infrastructure becomes a long-term population loss.

The declining numbers led to the first petition in 2019, where the appellants sought urgent directions to limit overhead power lines in priority areas and to create an expert committee for data collection and monitoring.

The 2021 judgment and its impact

In April 2021, the Supreme Court delivered a significant order. It directed the installation of bird diverters on all existing overhead lines in priority and potential Great Indian Bustard habitats. It also directed that future lines in these areas be placed underground wherever feasible. The Court stated that existing overhead lines must be converted into underground lines if feasibility studies permit it. The Court gave a one-year timeline. Till the conversion process was complete, bird diverters would remain mandatory.

The Court also created a three-member committee that included an expert from the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The committee was responsible for ensuring compliance, identifying priority areas and assessing the feasibility of undergrounding.

The order brought conservation to the centre of energy planning in these regions. It also created operational challenges for renewable energy projects, especially large solar and wind installations that depend on evacuation lines. Power developers argued that undergrounding was not viable for high-voltage lines across thousands of square kilometres.

The Ministry of Power submitted that 80,688 square kilometres had been classified as potential habitat and 13,550 square kilometres had been classified as priority habitat. Undergrounding in such a vast area would not be practical and would slow down renewable capacity additions. Several companies approached the Court seeking clarity.

The 2021 order remained in force, but the Court kept the case open to monitor implementation.

The 2024 order and the creation of the technical committee

By 2024, the Court recognised that the earlier directions required a deeper technical evaluation. The challenge was to protect the species without disrupting India’s renewable energy goals. On 21 March 2024, the Court created a seven-member committee under the Ministry of Power. The committee was asked to examine feasibility, recommend technologies and identify areas where undergrounding or alternative routing would be possible.

The Court stressed that the protection of the Great Indian Bustard remained non-negotiable. At the same time, it accepted that a blanket undergrounding mandate was not realistic across the entire habitat. The committee was expected to provide a scientific and site-specific approach.

The Court noted that India has international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. These commitments require the expansion of renewable energy and the reduction of emissions. The Court attempted to balance these obligations with its responsibility to protect biodiversity under Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution.

The judgment also pointed to possible funding sources for conservation. These included corporate social responsibility spending under Section 135 of the Companies Act and the duties of directors under Section 166(2). The Court added that the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act contained large funds that could be used to mitigate wildlife threats.

Another important development in the 2024 order was the Court’s recognition of a constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change. It located this right within Articles 14 and 21.

The new debate on intergenerational equity and eco centric governance

In November 2025, the Supreme Court examined another dimension of the case. It reviewed the status of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican. It also questioned whether principles such as intergenerational equity can protect species that are already close to extinction.

Intergenerational equity is the idea that each generation has a right to use natural resources and a duty to preserve them for future generations. The principle appears in global agreements like the Stockholm Declaration, the Rio Declaration and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The Court noted that the principle is essentially anthropocentric. It is framed around the interests of humans, both present and future. It views nature as a resource to pass down. For species that are close to extinction, this principle offers limited protection. Its focus on future human generations does not capture the intrinsic value of the species itself.

The Court referred to earlier judgments such as T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India. In that case, the Court recognised an eco centric approach where nature has value independent of human use. It also referred to Animal Welfare Board of India v Nagaraja, where Article 21 was extended to cover the dignity and fair treatment of animals.

The Court stated that for species like the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, the approach must shift from human-centred principles to ecological protection. The emphasis must be on the survival of the species itself.

The ongoing submissions in 2025

The hearings in 2025 continue to examine technical and ecological issues. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the protection of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican is linked to the protection of their habitats. He noted that the Great Indian Bustard lays only one egg and that any population loss is critical.

He pointed to examples of successful recovery of lions and rhinoceros in India and said that similar long-term commitment can help the Great Indian Bustard. He added that the 2021 order still holds persuasive value.

He proposed that companies can support conservation through CSR funds. He also presented objections to the technical committee report. These objections include the need for a defined corridor for new lines, the undergrounding of existing lines up to 400 kilovolts, and the avoidance of overhead corridors inside priority areas.

He also referred to the dissent note by Devesh Gadhavi, who proposed that additional areas, such as the Rasla enclosure, be added to the priority zone.

The Court is examining these submissions along with the committee recommendations.

What this means for India’s energy transition

The Great Indian Bustard case illustrates the complexity of managing biodiversity concerns alongside rapid renewable expansion. India needs large transmission corridors for its 500-gigawatt renewable energy target by 2030. Many of these corridors pass through arid and semi-arid landscapes. These landscapes are also the last intact habitats for several grassland species.

Grasslands are often treated as wastelands in land use planning. The case has brought attention to the ecological importance of these ecosystems. It shows that renewable energy development must account for biodiversity threats, especially in regions with critically endangered species.

The Supreme Court’s supervision aims to prevent the extinction of the Great Indian Bustard. At the same time, it recognises the importance of clean energy. The creation of technical committees, feasibility studies and site-specific evaluation may lead to a new framework for planning transmission lines in ecologically sensitive zones.

The case also reinforces that biodiversity conservation is not limited to wildlife departments. Energy ministries, state utilities, power developers and local administrations all play a role.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ongoing oversight demonstrates how environmental governance is evolving in India. The protection of the Great Indian Bustard is a constitutional responsibility and an ecological necessity. The Court has tried to create a balance between conservation and clean energy development. The transition from the 2021 mandate to the 2024 technical committee and the 2025 eco-centric review shows a gradual shift towards a more scientific and collaborative approach.

If the Great Indian Bustard becomes extinct, it will be the first avian species to disappear in India since independence. The Court has stated that this outcome is unacceptable. The coming months will show how the seven-member committee’s recommendations shape the next phase of conservation and how power line planning adapts to this sensitive landscape.

The featured photograph is by Prajwalkm and is licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.