Written by Venbhaa Lakshmi,
Lex Lumen Research Journal Winter Intern,
January 2026
Introduction
India’s Great Indian Bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps), locally known as the Godawan, is on the brink of extinction. Once a common occurrence in the grasslands of India, it is estimated that fewer than 250 fully grown animals remain today. The main causes of this decline have always been identified by conservation scientists as overhead power transmission lines, habitat fragmentation, and very low reproductive rates.
Despite warnings issued by wildlife experts over a long period of time, institutional reaction was still fragmented and slow. What at last placed the crisis in acute constitutional perspective was not the sheer decline in the numbers of the species, but the clash between the conservation of biodiversity and the rapid expansion of renewable energy infrastructure by India.
In M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India and others (2025), the Supreme Court redefined this dispute. The two-judge bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar did not resort exclusively to prohibitions or State action, but instead made use of an evolving instrument, namely Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). By doing so, it redefined CSR as an important statutory duty to a constitutional mechanism for environmental governance.
It is not just a judgment of saving one endangered species. It raises a deeper question about who must bear responsibility for protecting the environment in modern India.
The Bustard Crisis and the Judicial Journey
The Great Indian Bustard’s decrease in numbers was not sudden; it is the outcome of cumulative ecological negligence. With their lifespan spanning over decades and having a breeding cycle that produces one offspring per year, even at its best, even limited availability of adult species can drive the species to extinction.
Studies presented before the Court indicated that overhead power lines cause a substantial reason for adult Bustard fatalities. The Bustard is especially susceptible to collisions because it has a narrow frontal vision, unlike most birds. In other areas like Rajasthan and Gujarat – both key habitats for the species – the threats escalated together with massive renewable energy initiatives.
In 2019, conservationist M.K. Ranjitsinh filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court, requesting urgent intervention to protect the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican. In response to the ecological emergency, the Court issued interim orders dated 19.04.2021, establishing extensive restrictions on overhead power transmission lines in specified areas.
However, these blanket directions soon revealed to have structural limitations:
Renewable energy developers claimed that the sweeping bans were compromising the untapped solar energy.
Government agencies identified that power lines were only one among numerous other factors that caused species to decline, and that the species started dwindling as early as the 1960s.
Enforcement proved difficult when vast geographical areas were involved.
- Recognizing these concerns, the Supreme Court constituted a multidisciplinary Expert Committee consisting of conservation scientists, energy experts, and administrators. The final judgment delivered on 19th December 2025 highlights a significant shift – from judicial prohibitions to a site-specific and science-led approach.
Environmental Protection: Shared Constitutional Duty
The Court’s reasoning is firmly anchored in the constitutional interpretation. Instead of considering environmental protection as a policy concern, it puts wildlife conservation in the context of the core values of the Constitution.
Article 21, related to human life and dignity, is interpreted by the Court to include ecological systems that are fundamental in sustaining life. The Court again confirms that the right to life cannot be effectively secured in a degraded or biologically poor environment.
It is further confirmed when read with Articles 48A and 51A(g). Whereas Article 48A has a duty on the State to preserve the environment and wildlife, Article 51A(g) has a duty of citizens. Significantly, the Court interprets these provisions together, emphasizing the importance of recognizing that the environmental protection as not merely a state’s function but a distributed unitary State role but is a shared constitutional duty.
- This interpretation is crucial as it establishes a doctrinal space to expand accountability outside the State to institutions and corporate actors, whose decisions and actions affect ecological outcomes.
Doctrines Guiding Wildlife Conservation
Rather than seeing environmental principles as abstract ideals, the Supreme Court interprets and deploys them as operational tools.
Sustainable development: The court treated it not as a balance, but a limiting principle by the Court, in this case. The ruling recognizes that expanding renewable energy is itself an environmental need, core to climate mitigation. Additionally, conservation and development are not mutually exclusive but require careful steps considering both.
Precautionary principle: The principle assumes relevance in this case in the context of irreversible harm. Extinction of species, the Court observes, is not a reversible injury. In cases where scientific studies show a real risk of extinction, the law must intervene, even when the likelihood of extinction is not absolute.
Public Trust Doctrine: The State is expected to function as a guardian of nature. This means that the government cannot prioritize immediate economic gains if doing so would cause permanent, irreversible damage to the environment.
Polluter Pays Principle: Though not expressly imposed through monetary penalties, it enlightens the Court that those parties that cause ecological risk should be engaged in the mitigation process.
Species Best Interest Standard: Notably, the Court advocated the species’ best interest standard, in which it acknowledges that regulatory choices that involve critically endangered species should be evaluated based on survival and continuity instead of administrative convenience.
Why the Court Turned to CSR?
At the heart of this judgment lies the Court’s forward-looking move: its reliance on CSR as a conservation mechanism.
Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, qualifying companies are required to spend a prescribed amount of their profit on CSR activities. Environmental sustainability, ecological balance, and preservation of flora and fauna are clearly included under permissible CSR heads under Schedule VII, as well.
What further elevates CSR in this instance is its constitutional linkage. The Court interprets CSR requirements alongside Section 166(2) of the Companies Act, which requires directors to act in the best interest of the company, its employees, the community, and the environment. When viewed together with Article 51A(g), CSR is no longer discretionary philanthropy but has become a structured responsibility that forms part of how environmental protection is governed in India.
The Court’s inclination towards CSR over blanket prohibitions reflects a practical understanding of institutional limits, based on the following considerations:
Complete restrictions could slow down essential renewable energy projects that are vital for climate goals.
CSR allows regular, sustainable, and long-term funding for conservation.
Companies are responsible partners in protecting the environment, not just entities that cause harm.
In effect, the decision incorporates corporate responsibility directly with constitutional duties towards the environment.
Implications of a CSR-Centric Conservation Model
The consequences of this judgment are far from symbolic. On the positive note, CSR provides a consistent source of funding to protect wildlife, reducing the burden on the already stretched state’s resources. It nudges corporate decision-making to align with constitutional values and recognizes that private enterprises play a real and lasting role in shaping environmental outcomes.
At the same time, the shift is not without risk. The implementation of CSR involves considerable corporate discretion, which may lead to inconsistent implementation and weak monitoring. More importantly, over-reliance on corporate participation risks diluting the State’s non -negotiable responsibility under Article 48A to protect the environment.
These issues make one thing clear: CSR can and must support conservation, but it must not be at the cost of replacing the State’s duty. Strong regulatory oversight and transparent accountability systems are essential if this model moves beyond ideals and becomes effective and successful.
Conclusion
The Great Indian Bustard verdict signals a quiet, yet transformative moment in Indian environmental law. Constitutionalizing CSR, the Supreme Court moves environmental governance away from one-time judicial prohibition to durable solutions. The case acknowledges that courts will not be able to oversee ecosystems forever if they rely on the government. By embedding wildlife protection within corporate governance and constitutional duty, the Court lays down a shared, structured, and future-oriented model.
Viewing this way, the Bustard judgement may well serve as a template for resolving future conflicts between development and protection of other endangered species, where absolute bans prove neither practical nor ecologically sufficient.
REFERENCES
Primary Sources
The Constitution of India
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2025 INSC 1472 (India).
- Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013 (India).
- Secondary Sources:
Abhayraj Naik & Parul Kumar, Endangered Birds, Renewable Energy, and India’s New Constitutional Climate Right, 37 J. Env’t L. 159 (2025).
J. P. Silva et al., High Bird Mortality Due to Power Lines Invokes Urgent Environmental Mitigation in a Tropical Desert, 261 Biological Conservation 109262 (2021).
CSR Must Inherently Include Environmental Responsibility: Supreme Court, Economic Times (Dec. 20, 2025),
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/csr-must-inherently-include-environmental-responsibility-supreme-court/articleshow/126090173.cms?from=mdr
