The *M.K. Ranjitsinh* litigation shows the tension between India's renewable-energy targets and biodiversity conservation. Discuss how the judiciary has tried to balance the two.

The Great Indian Bustard (GIB) is Critically Endangered and listed in Schedule I. Only about 150 birds survive in the Thar [3], the same desert that drives India's solar and wind expansion. In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (an Art. 32 PIL), the Supreme Court has moved from a blanket ban to evidence-based balancing [2].

The nature of the tension

• Ecological: GIBs are heavy, low-flying birds that collide with overhead transmission lines. This is the threat at the centre of the case [2].
• Developmental: Western Rajasthan has huge solar potential, which is central to India's international climate commitments [4].

How the judiciary balanced the two

• 2021, the precautionary phase: The Court restricted overhead lines across ~99,000 sq km. It ordered bird diverters and undergrounding of lines where feasible [2].
• 2024, the recalibration: The Court held that a blanket undergrounding rule had no basis and that undergrounding high-voltage lines is technically difficult. It recognised a right against the adverse effects of climate change and set up an Expert Committee [4].
• 2025, the calibrated regime [2]:
• Revised priority areas of 14,013 sq km (Rajasthan) and 740 sq km (Gujarat)
• A power corridor up to 5 km wide, at least 5 km south of Desert National Park
• 80 km of 33 kV lines undergrounded immediately, and 250 km of WII-identified lines within two years
• Shared routing for renewable-energy lines, and bird diverters placed on the basis of scientific analysis

• Reliance on Art. 51A(g), the citizen's duty to protect the environment

• Ex-situ support: The Court ordered in-situ and ex-situ measures [2]. The first release of captive-bred GIBs (Oct 2026) is "guided by" the judgment [1].

Assessment

• Strengths: Its directions rest on expert committee findings and WII data, use proportionality, and keep a route open for clean power.
• Limits: Most lines stay overhead and depend on diverters. The two-year deadlines put pressure on power utilities. Critics also see judicial micromanagement of technical policy.

Overall, the litigation shows the Court treating climate action and species protection as two parts of one environmental right, not as rivals. Tracking compliance closely, publishing survival data on released birds and keeping power lines out of GIB habitat by design will matter more than further orders. That would secure both SDG 7 (clean energy) and SDG 15 (life on land).