A Species on the Brink
The Great Indian Bustard, one of the heaviest flying birds in the world, now survives in alarmingly low numbers, largely confined to Rajasthan’s desert ecosystem. Its decline is not accidental but the result of sustained habitat disruption and infrastructure intrusion. With poor frontal vision and a bulky body that limits agility, the bird is particularly vulnerable to overhead power lines, turning energy infrastructure into a lethal hazard rather than a neutral presence.
How the Dispute Reached the Court
The issue reached the Supreme Court of India through a petition highlighting repeated bird deaths caused by collisions with transmission lines linked to renewable energy projects in Rajasthan and Gujarat. What should have been addressed at the planning stage escalated into litigation because preventive action was never taken. The Court was essentially asked to step in where policy had failed.
The Clash Between Clean Energy and Conservation
At the heart of the case lay a difficult conflict. On one side was India’s aggressive push toward renewable energy, particularly solar and wind projects concentrated in desert regions. On the other was the survival of a species whose core habitat overlaps almost exactly with these energy zones. The problem wasn’t energy expansion itself but the absence of ecological foresight. Infrastructure had been laid first, and environmental consequences were considered later—an approach that predictably led to crisis.
From Blanket Ban to Targeted Strategy
In its earlier 2021 order, the Court had imposed a sweeping restriction on overhead power lines across vast stretches of bustard habitat and pushed for undergrounding. However, this approach soon ran into practical limitations, including high costs and technical feasibility issues. Recognizing this, the Court modified its stance in 2024 and shifted toward a more calibrated, evidence-based strategy guided by expert recommendations.
Redrawing Conservation Boundaries
The Court approved revised priority conservation areas, expanding protected zones in both Rajasthan and Gujarat. These areas were identified as critical breeding and survival habitats. However, even this process sparked controversy, with certain ecologically important corridors being excluded, raising concerns about whether conservation mapping was still falling short of ground realities.
Regulating Power Infrastructure
Instead of an outright ban, the Court introduced structured regulation of power lines. New overhead lines were largely prohibited within priority areas, while existing lines were to be either undergrounded or rerouted. Dedicated powerline corridors were created to consolidate infrastructure into defined stretches, reducing scattered risk across habitats. This marked a shift from reactive mitigation to planned risk reduction.
Restrictions on Renewable Projects
The judgment imposed clear limits on future development within critical habitats. New wind turbines, large solar plants, and expansion of existing projects were restricted in priority zones. This was a significant move, signaling that renewable energy projects would no longer receive unchecked approval simply because they are environmentally branded as “green.”
Scientific Approach Over Assumptions
Notably, the Court refrained from mandating widespread use of bird flight diverters without conclusive evidence of their effectiveness. Instead, it directed further scientific evaluation, emphasizing that conservation measures must be grounded in proven results rather than assumptions or symbolic compliance.
Strengthening Ground-Level Conservation
Beyond infrastructure control, the Court emphasized habitat restoration and active conservation. In Rajasthan, this included grassland recovery, predator management, and protection of breeding zones. In Gujarat, innovative methods like “jump-start” breeding—transferring fertile eggs to be raised in natural conditions—were encouraged, along with GPS-based monitoring to track and protect the remaining population.
The Larger Failure Behind the Case
The case ultimately exposes a deeper systemic flaw. The decline of the Great Indian Bustard is not a sudden crisis but the outcome of long-term neglect and poor planning. Development and conservation were treated as separate silos, leading to predictable conflict. The Court’s intervention is essentially corrective, not preventive—addressing damage that should never have been allowed in the first place.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling goes beyond a single species. It sets a precedent that even renewable energy projects must pass ecological scrutiny and cannot override biodiversity concerns. It also reinforces a fundamental point: sustainability is not achieved by replacing one form of harm with another. If environmental planning continues to ignore ecological realities, similar conflicts will keep emerging, with courts stepping in only after irreversible damage has already been done.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.