INTRODUCTION
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others versus Union of India and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 326, wherein a Public Interest Litigation was filed seeking to protect two species of birds namely the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) and the Lesser Florican, which are on the verge of extinction. It was contended that the existence of overhead power lines has become a hazard due to which the said species of birds on collision are getting killed.
It was sought in the Petition that the State
should ensure predator proof fencing, controlled grazing in the enclosure
development, no installation of overhead power lines, no further construction
of windmills and installation of solar infrastructure in priority and potential
habitats, and installation of divertors for the powerlines.
MAJOR CONTENTIONS
In order to understand this case better, let us
understand the major contentions of the parties.
Firstly, it was argued that the GIB is one of the
heaviest flying birds in the world one meter height and wingspan of around
seven feet. It has disappeared from 90 per cent of habitat except parts of
Rajasthan and Gujarat which is to be protected.
Secondly, it was stated that every year 1 lakh
birds die due to collision with power lines and unless power line mortality is
mitigated urgently, the extinction of the GIBs is certain.
Therefore, the Petitioners in this case also
sought undergrounding of all future overhead power lines. Further, the
Ministry of Power, Union of India, also admitted that: -
“The Great Indian Bustards (“GIB”) lack frontal
vision. Due to this, they cannot detect powerlines ahead of them, from far. As
they are heavy birds, they are unable to manoeuvre across power lines within
close distances. Thus, they are vulnerable to collision with power lines. In
case of low voltage lines, electrocution is often the cause of death due to
smaller phase to phase separation distance. High voltage lines do not cause
death due to electrocution but cause of death is due to collision in such cases.”
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
While considering all these arguments and facts,
the Supreme Court cited the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union
of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277, wherein it was observed that “Environmental
justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of
anthropocentric to ecocentric.” The case of M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, was also cited wherein the Doctrine of
Public Trust was enunciated highlighting that “certain common properties
such as rivers, seashores, forests and the air are held by the Government in
trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public” and “we,
as human beings, have a duty to prevent the species from going extinct and have
to advocate for an effective species protection regime .”
Further, in the present case, the Court perused
various reports by wildlife authorities and the measures suggested by them for
protection of the two species. Thereafter it observed that “there cannot
be disagreement whatsoever that appropriate steps are required to be taken to
protect the said species of birds”.
DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, it was directed that in respect of the existing overhead powerlines, the State shall install diverters and for the future powerlines, a study would be conducted by the State to understand the feasibility for the lines to be laid underground.
Secondly, the Court clarified that wherever
feasible, the State was directed to lay the transmission line underground and
wherever not feasible, the overhead lines shall be accompanied by installation
of the diverters.
Thirdly, it was observed that “irrespective
of the cost factor the priority shall be to save the near extinct birds”
and various statutory frameworks such as Corporate Social Responsibility,
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act etc. could be utilized for this purpose.
Fourthly, for conservation of the habitat to
secure the safety of the eggs laid down by the birds, the Court directed that
the earmarked area shall be fenced and protected from invasion by predators.
Further, the power supply lines that are to be underground are to be avoided in
these habitats.
Fifthly, a committee was constituted by the Court
to look into the technical details of the exercise to be carried out and based
on its Report, the State was directed to take requisite actions.
And lastly, the Court stressed that wherever the
conversion of the overhead cables into underground powerlines is found
feasible, the same is to be done within a period of one year and “till
such time the divertors shall be hung from the existing powerlines.”
CONCLUSION
I concur with the reasoning of the Court that there is a need to change the existing anthropocentric approach of the human beings. The human beings must begin to understand that they do not have any birth right to litter the Earth as they wish to. There are other species too who are quite essential for human survival. The nature has a delicate balance, and it has a certain beauty in it. To enjoy that beauty, we will need to give some space to other species as well. Otherwise, the human beings can continue to bask in their fake glory and the trouble shall await us in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment