M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union Of India

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION

2025 INSC 1472
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 838 of 2019
M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others …Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India & Others …Respondent(s)
With
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3570 of 2022
With
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 549 of 2025
J U D G M E N T
ONTENTS
C
I. Godawan , The Great Indian Bustard ............................................................. 2
II. Endangerment of the Great Indian Bustard ................................................... 6
III. Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution ........................................... 8
Interim Order of this Court dated 19.04.2021 ................................................ 9
IV.
V. Interlocutory Application by Respondents ................................................... 10
VI. Order of this Court dated 21.03.2024 and formation of the Expert
Committee ................................................................................................... 12
The Committee Reports .............................................................................. 18
VII.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.12.19
15:52:33 IST
Reason:
VIII. Consideration of Objections to the Committee Reports by Renewable Energy
Generators ................................................................................................... 33
Page 1 of 66


IX. CSR to include Corporate Environmental Responsibility ............................. 41
Submissions by Petitioner with Objection to Committee’s
X.
recommendation. ......................................................................................... 44
XI. Objections/Additional measures suggested by Petitioners .......................... 46
XII. Analysis ....................................................................................................... 48
A. Re: Inclusion of 657 sq. kms to the Revised Priority Area in Rajasthan ..... 49
B. Re: Even with respect to Non-Priority Areas, all Future Lines should Run
through Power Line Corridors .......................................................................... 54
C. Re: All Existing and Future Lines must be marked with Bird Flight Divertors
(‘BFDs’) ............................................................................................................ 55
D. Re: Regarding no new overhead powerlines (except 11kV and below) in the
revised priority areas and leases of existing wind turbines not to be
renewed. .......................................................................................................... 58
E. Re: Prohibition on limestone or other mines in the priority areas or revised
priority areas .................................................................................................... 61
F. Re: Conversion of existing and installation of new 11 kV and below Powerlines
as Aerial Bunched Cables in Revised Priority Areas ...................................... 61
G. Re: Undergrounding of 250 Km of critical power lines identified by WII in
Rajasthan in a time-bound manner. ................................................................. 62
H. Re: Mandatory Undergrounding or Time-Bound Rerouting of All Powerlines
(400 kV and Below) ......................................................................................... 62
I. Re: Mitigation of two lines of 400 kV from Bhachunda-Varsana of approx.
11.5 Kms .......................................................................................................... 63
XIII. Directions..................................................................................................... 64

1. Godawan , The Great Indian Bustard: We may not find more apt
lines to describe the present state and nature of one of the most wonderful
avian species of our ecosystem, the conservation of which this Court has
grappled with in the recent past:
“Luckily for one giant bird, they have such eyes. For millions of years,
way before primates evolved into humans, they used this lateral vision
to thrive in desert lands. This is the Great Indian Bustard, the State
bird of Rajasthan. It's over three foot tall and weighs forty pounds,
Page 2 of 66


about as big as a bird can be and still be able to take wing. A bird that
big should be easy to find.

Then people came and built wind turbines, and cables between tall
pylons to ferry to the city electricity garnered from desert winds.
1
Now the species is almost extinct.”

2. In Rajasthan, it is affectionately alluded by its cultural name as
“ Godawan” . It is inextricably connected to the culture and living of desert
communities. The Godawan has been associated with the nobility of the
Rajput kings and its majestic stature was likened to the qualities of a noble
warrior, making it a subject of admiration in local art and literature. Its
survival is a shared cultural responsibility, as the bird represents not just
a species but the unique natural heritage and resilience of the arid
landscapes. Traditional folklores have also revolved around formulaic folk
motifs which usually rhyme like;
,
मरुधरा रो मोती म्हारो प्यारो गोडावण;
- , ;
धीमी धीमी चाल चाले नखरालो गोडावण
, ;
धोरा वाल ȣ धरती माथे घूमे म्हारो गोडावण
2
1
,
सब पं Ǔछया में ऊंचो प्यारो गोडावण
3. Godawan holds deep cultural and historical significance for the
people of Rajasthan. It is considered a symbol of pride and grace,

1
Martin Goodman, My Head for a Tree: The Extraordinary Story of the Bishnoi, the World’s First Eco-
Warriors, pg. 95 (Profile Books, 2025).
2
“ The pearl of the desert land, my dear Godawan; It walks with a slow, graceful gait, my stylish
Godawan; On the land of the sand dunes, my Godawan wanders tallest among all the birds, my beloved
Godawan”; (Ghorad Kare Che Yaad – Great Indian Bustard Song)
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZP8KVMSc-Q >.

Page 3 of 66


interwoven with local folklore and traditions, and is highly revered,
particularly by communities like the Bishnois, who practice eco-veneration
and include the bird in their traditional protection norms. This is a classic
example depicting our country’s tradition of ecocentric, rather than
3
anthropocentric perspective of the universe . There is much to learn from
the philosophy of this community, a movement which began with Shri
Jambheshwar, fondly known as Guru Jambhoji proclaiming firmly that “A
tree covered in greenery is my temple and my home” to the deeply moving
courage and sacrifice of 363 Martyrs in 1730 led by Amrita Devi Bishnoi
4
to protect Khejri trees and late Radheshyam Bishnoi (1997-2025) whose
sacrifice will continue to inspire us in the times to come. By practising
5
ecocentric living, they honour the intrinsic value of every living being,

3
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”- Stephen Crane.

4
Rajat Ghai, Radheshyam Bishnoi was a man rooted in the Thar; he must be remembered as India’s
very own ‘Godawan Man’ (Down to Earth, May 31, 2025) < https://www.downtoearth.org.in/wildlife-
biodiversity/radheshyam-bishnoi-was-a-man-rooted-in-the-thar-he-must-be-remembered-as-indias-
very-own-godawan-man-sumit-dookia#google_vignette >.

5
The Bishnoi Community’s conservation impact is well reflected in Bombay Natural History Society and
Rotary Fellowship of Wildlifers for Conservation’s joint effort to install a godawan statue to honour the
female bustard who tragically lost her life due to collision with power lines in Deg Rai Mata Temple,
Oran. See, The Heartfelt Story Of Rajasthan’s Godawan Smarak: A Tribute To A Female Great Indian
Bustard Who Tragically Lost Her Life (BNHS, December 14, 2024) < https://blog.bnhs.org/the-heartfelt-
story-of-rajasthans-godawan-smarak-a-tribute-to-a-female-great-indian-bustard-who-tragically-lost-
her-life/ >.
A detailed account of conservation story of Bishnoi Community is narrated in Martin Goodman, My
Head for a Tree: The Extraordinary Story of the Bishnoi, the World’s First Eco-Warriors (Profile Books,
2025), specifically chapter 7 that discusses the interactions of the author with late Radheshyam Bishnoi
on GIB protection.
Page 4 of 66


sustaining a delicate harmony that thrived long before we were told that
we can conquer nature and overrule it.
4. The Great Indian Bustard (GIB), one of the heaviest flying birds in
the world and a flagship species of the arid and semi-arid grasslands of
the Indian subcontinent, is a majestic, long-legged bird that symbolizes
the health of the fragile grassland ecosystem, as its presence indicates a
balanced environment. Historically, this magnificent creature was found
across much of India, but today, its population being critically endangered,
is primarily concentrated in and around the Thar Desert. The urgent
conservation efforts, including the state-led ‘Project Godawan,’ (Project
GIB) seek to protect this cultural and ecological emblem from extinction,
ensuring that the regal bird continues to grace the golden sands of the
state for future generations .
5. Despite its immense historical, cultural, and ecological significance,
today GIB is one of the rarest birds to spot due to a steep decline in its
population in the last few decades. The GIB is, therefore, soon
approaching the fate of recently extinct animals like Golden Toad,
Western Black Rhinoceros, Pinta Giant Tortoise, Poʻouli, Bridle White-
Eye, etc., which the universe has lost forever. The threats of climate
change and unplanned development are real, and it is widely
acknowledged that our planet is experiencing the sixth mass extinction in
Page 5 of 66


its history. In addition to traditional conservation measures, steps must be
taken to protect currently endangered animals, and moreover, to
6
regenerate populations. The present exercise is one such step in this
regard.
6. The instant case concerns the protection of the Great Indian Bustard
(‘GIB’) and the Lesser Florican (‘LF’), both of which are on the verge of
extinction, and invites our attention to the critical aspects of environmental
protection and conservation. The issues in the instant case aptly
demonstrate the contestation between the goals of preserving historically
and ecologically significant species and green energy generation to
address climate change, and have previously resulted in two orders of this
Court, dated April 19, 2021, and March 21, 2024, directing certain
measures. The present adjudication aims to move further towards greater
certainty in our approach to conserving two species, and, importantly, to
rethink environmental conservation going forward in our pursuit of
sustainability and mutual coexistence with other living beings on our
mother Earth.
7. With time, the
Endangerment of the Great Indian Bustard:
country has seen a rapid and steady decline in the population of the GIB.

6
‘18 Animals that recently went Extinct’ (IFAW International, December 12, 2023)
< https://www.ifaw.org/international/journal/18-animals-recently-extinct >.
Page 6 of 66


As of 2018, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN
as it is popularly known, classified the GIB as a ‘critically endangered’
species. In IUCN’s system of classification, only two categories indicate a
graver threat to a particular species – ‘extinct in the wild’ and ‘extinct’. The
GIB has been classified as a critically endangered species from 2011 until
the most recent assessment in 2018. From 1994 to 2008, it was classified
as ‘endangered’ and in 1988, it was labelled ‘threatened’.
8. The Rajasthan government estimates that only about 125 GIBs
7
were present in the year 2013 while IUCN placed the number of mature
8
GIBs between 50 and 249. There are significant factors bearing upon the
dwindling numbers and low rate of reproduction of the existing population
of these species:
i. Pollution, climate change, predators and competition with
invasive species are among the many threats that exacerbate
the challenges faced by these vulnerable species.
ii. GIBs usually lay a single egg which has an incubation period of
approximately one month. The GIBs nest on open ground or in
cavities in the soil. Consequently, their eggs are also laid and

7
Government of Rajasthan, Forest Department, ‘Project Great Indian Bustard’
< https://forest.rajasthan.gov.in/content/raj/forest/en/footernav/department-wings/project-great-indian-
bustard.html >.
8
IUCN Red List.
Page 7 of 66


incubated on the ground. The eggs are therefore at risk of being
preyed upon by local predators including mongooses, monitor
lizards, and other birds. Cows may also trample on or crush the
eggs while grazing in the grasslands.
iii. The loss of habitat is also a serious concern. As humans have
expanded their settlements and economic activities into the
grasslands, the natural habitat of the GIB has diminished. The
expansion of human population and accompanying activities has
also resulted in the fragmentation of the GIB’s habitat.
iv. The expansion of infrastructure such as roads, mining and
farming activities have cumulatively contributed to the dangers
faced by the avian species.
v. The attrition of the existing population of these endangered birds
has been attributed to overhead transmission lines .
9. : The present
Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution was filed in 2019 seeking immediate directions for the
conservation of these species. The writ petition prayed for various
directions via issuance of writs, inter alia, including:
Page 8 of 66


a) direction to Respondents to urgently frame implement an
emergency response plan for the protection and recovery of the
GIB, including directions for the installation of bird diverters,
immediate embargo on the sanction of new projects, as well as
other measures in and around critical and semi-critical habitats; and
b) appointment of an Empowered Committee to oversee the
implementation of the directions issued by the Court, to preserve
and manage the endangered species and their habitats.
9
10. Another writ petition filed by renewable energy developer ACME, is
10
tagged with the primary writ petition, as well as a civil appeal arising from
an NGT order that concerns with deployment of Bird Flight Diverters
(‘BFD’). The issues in the tagged matters are congruent to the issues
raised by main writ petition and will be addressed in our analysis.
11. Interim Order of this Court dated 19.04.2021: The writ petition led
to the interim directions of this Court vide order dated 19.04.2021,
imposing restriction on setting up of overhead transmission lines in a large
territory of about 99,000 square kilometres. Directing accordingly, the
court also appointed a three-member committee to assess the feasibility
of laying high-voltage underground power lines. The Court also directed

9
W.P.(C) No. 549 of 2025.
10
C.A. No. 3570/2022.
Page 9 of 66


that, in all cases where overhead power lines exist as of the date in the
priority and potential GIB areas, steps shall be taken to install bird
diverters pending consideration of converting the overhead power lines to
underground power lines. Furthermore, the court directed that in all cases
where it is feasible to convert overhead lines to underground power lines,
this shall be undertaken and completed within one year. The said order
was implemented by the Committee by granting sanctions on a case-by-
case basis when undergrounding was not possible.
12. Interlocutory Application by Respondents: However, about six
months after the order, it was felt by the respondents that the wide sweep
and coverage of the directions, qua a large area of Rajasthan in the April
2021 order, was not feasible, as it hampered the solar energy production
potential in the region. In this view, in November 2021, the respondents,
namely the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change
(‘MoEFCC’), the Ministry of Power, and the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (‘MNRE’), respectively, filed IA No 149293 of 2021
seeking modification of directions issued by the April 2021 order. The
grounds for seeking modifications were primarily that:
a) The April 2021 order has vast adverse implications for the power
sector in India and energy transition away from fossil fuels;
b) Respondent No. 4 (MNRE) was not heard before passing the order;
Page 10 of 66


c) India has made international commitments, including under the
agreement signed in Paris in 2015 under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), for the
transition to non-fossil fuels and for the reduction of emissions;
d) The area with respect to which the directions were issued is much
larger than the actual area in which the GIBs dwell. Moreover, that
area contains a significant proportion of the country's solar and wind
energy potential;
e) Undergrounding high voltage power lines is technically not
possible, and the coal-fired power, which would be used to replace
the untapped energy from renewable sources in the concerned
area, would cause pollution.
13. In the course of hearing of the interlocutory application, the Union of
India filed an affidavit and comprehensive status report submitting and
proposing that a blanket direction of the nature that has been imposed by
this Court, would not be feasible in the conservation of the GIB, as global
practice indicates that large swathes of land need not be closed off as a
conservation strategy. Furthermore, it was noted that the decline in the
population of GIBs began in the 1960s, well before the electrification of
the area and the construction of transmission lines. Additionally, it was
highlighted that the direction by this Court for laying high-voltage, or as
Page 11 of 66


the case may be, low-voltage lines underground was practically
impossible to implement. It was also argued that multiple alternative
measures have been taken by the Union of India as well as the State
Governments to conserve and protect the endangered species of GIB.
14.
Order of this Court dated 21.03.2024 and formation of the
Taking stock of submissions of the stakeholders and
Expert Committee:
the need to balance conservation of endangered species with imperative
of protecting against climate change, which is possible only if ample thrust
is placed upon renewable energy, the Court modified the direction as
contained in April 2021 order by its order dated 21.03.2024 observing that
there was no basis to impose a general prohibition in regard to the
installation of transmission lines for the distribution of solar power in an
area about 99,000 square kilometres. The primary reasons for the
modification of the 2021 order in the context of power generation included,
inter alia:
a. The diverse factors responsible for the reduction of the GIB
population, including low fecundity, fragmentation, habitat loss,
predators, and loss of prey, must be addressed, and the conversion
of overhead into underground transmission lines is not likely to lead
to the conservation of the species;
Page 12 of 66


b. Underground power transmission cables are available only in 400
kV. The drum size for such cables is 250 m. These cables have a
greater number of joints. As the number of joints increases, there is
a corresponding rise in the risk to safety, especially for farmers
whose land the cables are laid under. The downtime of electricity
plants will also increase;
c. Flag Markers of underground cables do not serve the intended
purpose in desert regions because of strong winds that blow and
carry sand. This may cover or otherwise impact the flag markings.
In the absence of functional markings, it is unsafe and impractical
to underground high voltage cables in deserts;
d. Underground cables do not efficiently transmit AC power. The
transmission loss in such cables is about five times higher;
e. Underground cables may give rise to environmental issues for
many vulnerable species. They may also result in forest fires or
other fires;
f. The area sought to underground powerlines has immense solar
potential. To date, only 3% of this potential has been realised. If the
remaining potential remains untapped, an additional 93,000 MW of
coal would be required in the future. An estimated 623 billion kg of
Page 13 of 66


carbon dioxide would be released from coal-fired power generation.
This would significantly damage the environment and hinder global
efforts to combat climate change.
15. This Court found it suitable to entrust the task of recommendation
of protective, mitigation, and conservation measures to an expert
committee. The relevant portions of the March 2024 order are as under:
“60. While balancing two equally crucial goals - the conservation of the
GIB on one hand, with the conservation of the environment as a whole
on the other hand - it is necessary to adopt a holistic approach which
does not sacrifice either of the two goals at the altar of the other. The
delicate balance between the two aims must not be disturbed. Rather,
care must be taken by all actors including the state and the courts to
ensure that both goals are met without compromising on either. Unlike
other competing considerations, these do not exist in disjunctive silos.
Therefore, a dilemma such as the present one does not permit the
foregrounding of one of these as a priority, at the cost of the other. If
this Court were to direct that the power transmission lines be
undergrounded in the entire area delineated above, many other parts
of the environment would be adversely impacted. Other endangered
species may suffer due to the emission of harmful gases from fossil
fuels. Rising temperatures and the attendant evils of climate change
may not be halted in a timely fashion, leading to disastrous
consequences for humankind and civilisation as a whole. The
existential threat may not be averted.
61. Moreover, the decision on whether to convert the overhead power
transmission lines into underground lines is a matter of environmental
policy. While adjudicating writ petitions which seek reliefs which are of
the nature sought in the present case, this Court must conduct judicial
review while relying on domain experts. Those who are equipped and
trained to assess the various facets of a problem which is litigated
before the Court must be consulted before a decision is taken. If this
is not done, the Court may be in danger of passing directions without
a full understanding of the issue in question. Consequently, in the
absence of evidence which forms a certain basis for the directions
sought, this Court must be circumspect in issuing sweeping directions.
In view of the implications of the direction issuing a blanket prohibition
on overhead transmission lines, we are of the view that the direction
needs to be recalled and it will be appropriate if an expert committee
is appointed. The committee may balance the need for the
preservation of the GIB which is non-negotiable, on one hand, with the
Page 14 of 66


need for sustainable development, especially in the context of meeting
the international commitments of the country towards promoting
renewable sources of energy, on the other hand. By leveraging
scientific expertise and engaging stakeholders in meaningful
consultations, this approach ensures that conservation efforts are
grounded in evidence and inclusive of diverse perspectives.
62. We are accordingly of the view that the order passed by this Court
on 19 April 2021 needs to be suitably modified. A blanket direction for
undergrounding high voltage and low voltage power lines of the nature
that was directed by this Court would need recalibration for the
reasons discussed above. This task is best left to domain experts
instead of an a priori adjudication by the Court. Experts can assess the
feasibility of undergrounding power lines in specific areas, considering
factors such as terrain, population density, and infrastructure
requirements. This approach allows for more nuanced decision-
making tailored to the unique circumstances of each location, ensuring
that conservation objectives are met in a sustainable manner.”
16. Taking the suggestions from all the stakeholders and in view of the
need of a high-stakes study, the Court deemed fit to constitute an expert
committee comprising the following members:
(i) Director, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun;
(ii) Dr Hari Shankar Singh, Member, National Board for Wildlife;
(iii) Dr Niranjan Kumar Vasu, Former Principal Chief Conservator
of Forest;
(iv) Mr. B Majumdar, former Chief Wildlife Warden and Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra;
(v) Dr Devesh Gadhavi, Deputy Director, The Corbett Foundation;
(vi) Shri Lalit Bohra, Joint Secretary (Green Energy Corridor),
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; and
Page 15 of 66


(vii) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change.
17. Since the Committee was required to traverse the area of the setting
up of transmission lines to facilitate solar power generation, the Court
directed that the Committee shall consist of the following two special
invitees:
(i) Shri Ashok Kumar Rajpur, Member Power Systems,
Central Electricity Authority; and
(ii) Mr. PC Garg, Chief Operating Officer, Central
Transmission Utility of India Ltd.
18. The remit of the Expert Committee was to encompass the following:
a. Determining the scope, feasibility and extent of overhead and
underground electric lines in the area identified as priority areas in
the reports of the Wildlife Institute of India in the States of Rajasthan
and Gujarat;
b. The need for adopting conservation and protection measures for the
GIB as well as other fauna specific to the topography;
c. Identification of the measures to be adopted in the priority areas to
ensure the long-term survival of the GIB and facilitate an increase
Page 16 of 66


in its population. Such measures may include habitat restoration,
anti-poaching initiatives, and community engagement programs;
d. Evaluating the potential consequences of climate change on GIB
habitats, considering factors such as shifting precipitation patterns,
temperature extremes, habitat degradation and developing adaptive
management strategies to enhance their resilience;
e. Identification of suitable options in the context of sustainable
development in the matter of laying power lines in the future. The
alternatives identified should balance the conservation and
protection of the GIB with the arrangement of power lines in a
manner that facilitates the fulfilment of India's international
commitments to develop renewable sources of energy;
f. Engaging with relevant stakeholders, including government
agencies, environmental organisations, wildlife biologists, local
communities, and energy industry representatives, to solicit inputs,
build consensus, and promote collaborative efforts towards
achieving conservation and sustainable development goals;
g. Conducting a thorough review of conservation efforts and innovative
approaches in similar contexts globally, such as the Houbara
Page 17 of 66


Bustard in the Middle East or the Black Stilt in New Zealand, to
inform best practices;
h. Implementing a robust monitoring and research program to track
GIB populations, habitat dynamics, and the effectiveness of
conservation measures over time. This may include employing
techniques such as satellite tracking, camera trapping, and
ecological surveys to gather essential data for informed decision-
making; and
i. Adopting any additional measures, both in regard to the priority and
potential areas, as the Committee considers appropriate, including
considering the efficacy and suitability of installing bird diverters on
existing and future power lines on the basis of a scientific study.
19. By ordering thus, the Court recalled the order dated 19.04.2021
insofar as it imposed the injunction in respect of the area described as the
priority and potential areas.
20. The expert committee, after holistic
The Committee Reports:
scientific analysis of all the issues concerning the conservation measures
for the GIB and other threatened species, submitted its recommendation
report to this Court on 03.09.2024 for the State of Rajasthan. While
submitting the report, the Committee noted a lack of consensus among its
Page 18 of 66


members on recommendations for the State of Gujarat and recommended
maintaining the status quo in terms of the judgment dated 21 March 2024.
However, on 07.11.2024, this Court directed the Committee to submit a
report for Gujarat so that the matter can be discussed jointly for both
States. The report for the State of Gujarat is now before us.
21. The Expert Committee reports that it held many proceedings, field
visits, and stakeholder consultations to arrive at its decision. The process
undertaken by the expert committee, primarily in State of Rajasthan,
before arriving at its recommendations included:
a. Committee meetings, virtual and on-site
b. Site visit to Jaisalmer, Rajasthan (a hotspot for GIB
conservation) on 1-2 July 2024 for assessing the ground
situation concerning GIB habitats, transmission lines, and
conservation efforts being implemented by the MoEFCC,
Rajasthan Forest Department and WII, as well as holding
stakeholder meetings.
c. Meeting for consultation with stakeholders, attended by all
committee members and included power generation
companies, power transmission companies, power
Page 19 of 66


distribution companies, other industry representatives, and
local communities.
d. In addition to the site visits and stakeholder meetings on the
ground, a consultation workshop to prepare a conservation
report for the GIB in Rajasthan was held at the Wildlife Institute
of India on 6 July 2024, attended by all committee members
and other stakeholders.
e. Meeting of committee members with the Chief Wildlife
Warden, holding deliberations on various issues related to the
subject.
f. Meeting at MNRE office, New Delhi, to reach a final balanced
solution that aids the conservation of the GIB, LF, and
associated fauna while balancing India’s renewable energy
targets.
22. As regards the peculiar character of Godawan , the GIB, the
Committee expressed its findings that Godawan is a large bird of open
grasslands and dryland habitats and is susceptible to hunting by humans
and other predators. While their eyes are arranged laterally on the head
to provide enhanced peripheral vision, which improves vigilance in open
areas, this trait is maladaptive in current landscapes with linear aerial
Page 20 of 66


11
infrastructures. Additionally, bustards are slow breeders, and any loss
of adult birds is very harmful to the viability of their population.
23. The Committee also noted that, out of the 26 bustard species across
12
the globe, 15 (58%) are threatened / near-threatened . This situation is
more severe for Asia, especially India, where all three resident bustard
species - the GIB, LF, and Bengal Florican - are found and are critically
13
endangered. The committee highlights that the historical decline of the
birds was largely due to trophy hunting, which intensified alongside the
14
development of intensive agriculture and energy infrastructure.
24. Recommendations for State of Rajasthan : The report of the nine-
15
member committee is nearly unanimous, except for the notes of
disagreement by one member. The recommendations by the majority
members, include, inter alia:
(i) Rationalisation of GIB areas: The committee recommends a
priority area of 14,013 sq. km by including 850 sq. km of area to
the existing 13,163 sq. km of priority area in the State of Rajasthan.

11
Martin, G. R., and J. M. Shaw. “Bird collisions with power lines: failing to see the way ahead?”
Biological Conservation 143.11 (2010): 2695-2702.
12
Collar, N. J., et al. “Averting the extinction of bustards in Asia”, Forktail 33 (2017): 1-26.
13
Committee Report (Rajasthan).
14
Uddin, Mohib, et al. “High bird mortality due to power lines invokes urgent environmental mitigation
in a tropical desert”, Biological Conservation 261 (2021): 109262.
15
In the course of the judgment, reference to recommendations made by the Committee must be
understood as Recommendations made by the ‘Majority Committee’.
Page 21 of 66


(ii) Measures for Conservation and Protection of GIB (also applicable
for Gujarat):
a) Initiation of restoration, conservation and consolidation of
grassland ecosystem in India.
b) Identification of five critical sites in Rajasthan within the
revised priority area for consolidation, restoration and
protection, namely,
i. Desert National Park Wildlife Sanctuary- Salkha-Kuchri
area,
ii. Sanu - Mokla - Parewar area,
iii. Pokhran Field Firing Range (PFFR) and buffer areas,
iv. Ramdevra area and habitats on the eastern periphery of
the PFFR, and
v. Dholiya-Khetolai-Chacha area along with habitats
adjoining southern boundary of PFFR.
c) Recommendations regarding measures for in-situ
conservation of GIB within the revised priority areas of
Rajasthan, in addition to this Court’s judgement dated
21.03.2024, namely
Page 22 of 66


i. Enclosure Establishment/Improvement;
ii. Predator management (monitoring, translocation and
sterilisation);
iii. Weed removal and grass plantation;
iv. Food and water management;
v. Improving protection of GIB in the revised priority area;
vi. Community engagement, including designation of certain
areas as conservation reserve;
vii. Administrative and institutional arrangements, such as
cooperation between different states, initiation of Project
Bustard along the lines of other Projects such as Project
Tiger, Elephant etc.
(iii) Project Great Indian Bustard (Also applicable to the State of
Gujarat): Finalization of the next phase of Project Bustard (Phase-
II 2029-2033) and its funding through the National CAMPA funds.
Provision of funding to the State Forest Departments for restoring
habitats, mitigating threats and developing suitable sites for future
release of captive GIB from the National Conservation Breeding
Centre. Scaling up of the current activities being undertaken for
Page 23 of 66


conservation breeding and habitat improvement, including in other
range States; ensuring dedicated support for these activities.
(iv) Monitoring of GIB and Habitats (Also applicable to the State of
Gujarat): Continuous monitoring of the GIB and LF Populations and
the monitoring of habitat restoration efforts.
(v) Effects of Climate Change on GIB (Also applicable to the State of
Gujarat): Continuation of study being undertaken by the WII for

monitoring the impacts of climate change on GIB and LF, as well
as the utility of enclosures to provide resilience against the effects
of climate change. Further mechanistic studies on bustards and
other associated taxa, and monitoring of climate change resilience
of conservation actions.
(vi) Powerline Corridor through the revised priority area: The
Committee has recommended providing a power corridor of up to 5
km width, which will be at a distance of 5 km or more to the south
of the southern-most enclosure of Desert National Park.
Coordinates of the Corridor to be proposed by the Rajasthan Forest
Department (‘RFD’) and WII. If feasible, High-Capacity HDCV
corridors are to be adopted to reduce the number of lines required
to carry the same quantum of power. No new powerlines to be
allowed in revised priority areas except through a dedicated
Page 24 of 66


‘powerline corridor’. No new wind turbines and new solar
parks/plants of more than 2MW capacity should be allowed within
the revised priority area.
(vii) Mitigation Measures in the Potential Areas (Also applicable to the
State of Gujarat): The Expert Committee has recommended no

restriction on the laying of powerlines in the Potential Area (area
outside the revised priority area)
(viii) No Mitigation for low tension lines in 100m of settlement boundary
(Also applicable to the State of Gujarat): The Committee has
suggested no mitigation of existing and future powerlines of 11kV
and below voltage in the 100 metre buffer around the settlement
areas.
(ix) Recommendations for Mitigation of Powerlines:
- Powerlines of 11 kV and below: The Committee has
recommended that all 11kV and below lines in the revised
priority area be mitigated using insulated cables in horizontal
configuration or insulated cables with bunching. Any new power
line in a forest or critical area should preferably be laid
underground. Critical wildlife habitat to be suggested by the WII
Page 25 of 66


in consultation with the RFD will be considered for additional
mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis.
- 33 kV lines: 80 km out of the 104 km of lines identified in the
earlier order dated 19.04.2021 to be immediately
undergrounded. The lengths proposed by the Committee to be
undergrounded are at Para 44(b)/Report. The remaining 33 kV
lines, to be identified by the WII and the Rajasthan Forest
Department within 3 months, and these lines are to be mitigated
using undergrounding/re-routing/insulated cables (Para
44(c)/Report). The Committee also recommends that segments
of 33kV and above powerlines passing through enclosures be
rerouted to more suitable locations that are 1-2 km away from
the boundaries of the enclosures.
- 66 kV and above: The Committee recommends rerouting of nine
66 kV lines with horizontal alignment of conductors and in
horizontal configuration as per their indicated alignments,
subject to finalisation of route by the State Transmission
Utility/owner of the line in consultation with the CEA, Rajasthan
Forest Department and WII within 6 months. The Committee has
also recommended that the technical feasibility of rerouting
Page 26 of 66


these lines through a 2km wide corridor on the right/east side of
Mokla enclosure, in order to avoid haphazard rerouting.
- As regards remaining lines, the Committee has generally
recommended that wherever undergrounding is not feasible,
high tension power lines of 66kV and above be mitigated in other
ways, with preference given to re- routing of critical sections to
avoid important habitats/units in the revised priority areas.
-
The Committee recommends that remaining powerlines of 33kV
and above that pass through or are in the vicinity of enclosures
are to be re-routed to locations that are 1-2 km away from the
enclosures.
(x) Use of Bird Flight Diverters (Also applicable to the State of Gujarat):
The Expert Committee has not recommended the use of Bird Flight
Diverters ('BFD') as a mitigation measure in either the revised
priority or the potential areas on the basis of unproven efficacy and
high cost of installation and maintenance. The Committee has
recommended that an ongoing study by WII, assessing the
effectiveness of bird diverters in reducing bird collision mortality
with power lines, be conducted within a year (or an additional year
or two years), and recommendations be submitted to the Ministry
for further consideration.
Page 27 of 66


(xi) The Committee recommends that all mitigation measures, such as
undergrounding and re-routing, are to be started immediately and
completed before 2028. Proposals for re-routing are to be
discussed with the Rajasthan Forest Department and WII to ensure
that the alignment does not compromise the goal of GIB
conservation.
25. : On similar lines with
Recommendations for State of Gujarat
major mitigation recommendations for the State of Rajasthan, the
Committee suggests following measures for Gujarat:
(i) Rationalisation of the GIB Priority Area: The committee
recommends the Revised Priority Area of 740 sq. km. The Expert
Committee modified some portion of the original Priority Area, but
maintains a major part of the same for the State of Gujarat at 500
sq. km, and added approximately 240 sq. km to the Priority Area of
Gujarat, and consolidates it into a new 'Revised Priority Area' (total
740 sq. km.).
(ii) Specific recommendations of in-situ measures for the State of
Gujarat in the revised priority area (apart from the general
recommendations adopted from the Rajasthan Report):
Page 28 of 66


i. 'Jump Start' using fertile eggs from Rajasthan- a process where
infertile egg is swapped with a fertile egg, allowing the female to
incubate and raise chick in the wild.
ii. Tagging of remaining birds by GPS to facilitate jump start and
subsequent monitoring.
iii. Consolidation of revenue areas around forest lands.
iv. Prosopis juliflora management which are an invasive species.
v. Removal of plantation of non-native woody species.
vi. Restoration of grasslands after removal of prosopis /plantations.
vii. Predator Management (particularly targeted at free ranging
dogs).
viii. Restrictions on infrastructure within restored grassland areas.
ix. Designation of important areas as protected areas under the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, indicative list of which is given.
x. Pasture development to reduce dependency of livestock on
grassland protected for GIB.
Powerline Corridor passing through revised priority area: The
(iii)
Committee has recommended following two corridors:

i. A power corridor of 1 km width along the Akrimota-Bachunda
22kV transmission line upto Bhachunda 400 kV GIS. The
Akrimota - Bhachunda 220 kV transmission line will be the
Page 29 of 66


eastern border of the proposed corridor, while the Tera-
Kunathiya road will be the western border. The committee
recommends the continuity of the corridor from Bhachunda 400
kV GIS via Varsana – Bhachunda 400 kV line up to Bhachunda
village, as highlighted in map 4 (a). The width of this part of the
corridor will be up to 2 kms. All existing 66 kV and above lines
originating or terminating at the Bhachunda substation and all
future powerlines of 66 kV and above capacity coming to the
Bhachunda substation are to be within the corridor only.
ii. Another power corridor is recommended from Kothara to
Sindhodii Nani substation in the west and Suthri substation in the
south. This corridor will be used to evacuate power from the
windmills situated along the coast. Additionally, the 66 kV and
above powerlines located between Nani Sindhodii and Godhra,
are to be rerouted through the Corridor.
(iv) Timeline of action within priority area: The Committee has divided
the revised priority area into two parts- north and south and provided
timeline of 2 years for mitigation of existing lines in the northern part
and mitigation in the remaining area to be done around 2028.
(v) Mitigation of existing 33kV lines:
Page 30 of 66


i. The Committee has identified certain segments of four 33kV lines
(total 79.2km) in the revised priority area for immediate
undergrounding/re-routing outside the revised priority area. The
Committee has also suggested that if undergrounding or re-
routing is technically infeasible overall or in some sections, the
sections may remain overhead, but they should be mitigated
through conversion to insulated cables (preferably with bunching)
and laid in horizontal configuration such that all wires (both
conductors) are parallel to each other in the same height level.
The technical feasibility and subsequent mitigation to be decided
by a joint committee having representative of CEA, State
Transmission Utility, GFD and WII and next best mitigation
measure should be adopted
ii. All remaining 33kV lines in the revised priority areas are to be
mitigated using underground/re-routing outside revised priority
area or conversion to insulated-cables in single horizontal frame.
The decision to be based on habitat suitability criteria and case
to case technical feasibility. Such lines will be identified by WII
and GFD within 3 months and technical feasibility be evaluated
by CEA.
(vi) Mitigation of existing 66kV and above lines:
Page 31 of 66


i. The Committee has recommended nine critical 66kV lines (total
64.9 km) for immediate undergrounding. The Committee has
further recommended that where undergrounding some
stretches of these lines is not technically feasible, the option of
rerouting outside the revised Priority Area or through the
proposed corridors should be considered. Further, where
undergrounding is not technically feasible and re-routing is to be
done, the State Transmission Utility/owner of the transmission
lines refer to the alignments proposed in Map 4 and finalise them
within 6 months, in consultation with the CEA, GFD and WII.
ii. The Committee has recommended that other existing 66 kV lines
(10.2 km in length) in the revised Priority Area be mitigated on a
case-to-case basis
iii. For 220 kV and above lines, the Committee has generally
suggested measures such as re-routing outside the revised
priority area or within the revised priority area through a powerline
corridor or laying of lines in horizontal configuration. The
measures from these three options are to be decided on case to
case basis by a joint committee having representative of CEA,
State Transmission Utility, GFD and WII.
Page 32 of 66


iv. The Committee has further given specific recommendations for
seven identified 220kV and 400 kV lines (total 48.4 km) (see table
at pg. 3489, pdf pg. 2139 of Gujarat Report/Vol V of CC).
(vii) On account of large scale erection of transmission lines at the cost
of avifaunal diversity, the Committee has recommended re-
examination of undergrounding powerlines above 33 kV in critical
habitat by power line experts, considering the advancement in
technology.
26. Consideration of Objections to the Committee Reports by
Renewable Energy Generators: Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing for JSW and ACME, argued that while he agrees with the
majority report so far as the stakes of ACME are concerned, he would
argue that some of the committee's recommendations are not in line with
India’s solar energy generation commitment and go beyond the remit of
the committee as outlined in this Court’s 2024 order. Mr. Singh has made
elaborate submissions arguing that the Expert Committee’s
recommendations on many issues are untenable and shall not be given
effect. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. ASG has responded to those submissions
and also filed written submissions. We deem it fit to deal with Mr. Singh’s
arguments straightaway.
Page 33 of 66


(i) Mr. Singh submits that the committee’s recommendation to
increase the priority area from 13,163 sq. km. to 14,013 sq. km.
should be rejected. He submits that there is no quantitative
analysis (e.g., projected GIB population viability gain) to show that
adding these 850 km² will materially reduce extinction risk,
especially given that the bulk of the GIB population was already
within the original 13,163 sq. km. priority area.
In this regard, Ms. Bhati has invited our attention to the mandate of
the Committee in terms of paragraph 69 of the 2024 order, which
specifically provided that the Committee shall be at liberty to
recommend other measures, including identifying and adding
suitable areas beyond the priority zones if considered crucial for
the conservation of species. Ms. Bhati submits that the committee
has recommended the addition of priority areas after extensive
consultation with Rajasthan Forest Department, scientific agencies
including the Wildlife Institute of India and relevant stakeholders,
by referring to extensive materials which are part of the Annexures
to the Rajasthan Report. In this view, the objection to the addition
of revised area by generators should be rejected.
We are in agreement with this submission, which is apparent from
reading the remit of the committee from the Court’s order. There is
Page 34 of 66


no infirmity in the Committee’s recommendation for the addition of
areas vis-à-vis its mandate.
(ii) Mr. Singh submits that there should not be a blanket ban on the
installation of solar projects over 2MW capacity or the laying of
overhead transmission lines because there is no reasonable basis
to allow solar projects under 2MW and stall projects above it. Ms.
Bhati has invited our attention to the Committee Report, which
elaborates on how the 2MW threshold is well reasoned because
projects below 2MW shall help in “generation of renewable energy
by local communities to meet part of their increasing electricity
demand and avail various government schemes” without “leading
to additional habitat loss for the great Indian Bustard” .
In our opinion, it would be improper for the Court to revisit a
quantitative threshold determined by experts without any
compelling reason.
(iii) Mr. Singh also submitted that rather than imposing omnibus
prohibition across the priority area, the Court should mandate site-
specific safeguards for any projects, such as undergrounding of the
highest-risk segments, compulsory installation of certified bird
Page 35 of 66


diverters on all overhead spans, use of insulated cables, seasonal
adjustments, and any other measure as may be recommended.
Ms. Bhati submits, and as it is apparent from the Committee report
that there are, in fact, case-based measures recommended at
certain instances, and this is the reason for the classification of
various powerlines and varied mitigation measures for different
areas.
The Committee report in any manner cannot be read to imposed
omnibus restrictions or make wholesale recommendations as
submitted by Mr. Singh. The argument, therefore, is rejected.
(iv) Alternatively, he submits that the Court should consider exempting
projects currently being set up in the Revised Priority Area (for
which land has already been allotted by the State Government)
from the restrictions imposed in the report of the Expert Committee.
In this view, he submits that the Expert Committee has deviated
from its mandate, as tasked by the Supreme Court, which was not
to reinstate a blanket ban but to devise nuanced, site-specific
recommendations that reconcile GIB protection with sustainable
development.
Page 36 of 66


Additionally, he submits that the State Government be directed to
grant alternative land for the development of solar projects, such
as those of JSW, that are now included in the Priority Area, without
incurring any additional costs. He further submits that the Expert
Committee has made recommendations without referring to
parallel international studies and practices, including those in
Germany, and has also failed to appreciate the successful
conservation of the Asian Houbara Bustard in Iran by identifying
high-risk collision hotspots and installing spiral bird diverters.
Ms. Bhati submits that there is no embargo placed by Committee
on generators to request the State Government for an alternate
land. In fact, this is an issue that the Committee has not addressed
at all.
We are of the view that the State Government can consider the
representation of Generators on its own merits.
27. Mr. Singh also argues that there are two aspects to undergrounding
of powerlines – technical and financial. He proposes that instead of
adopting the omnibus and one-size-fits-all recommendation of the
Committee regarding underground powerlines, this Court shall delegate
the authority to direct undergrounding to the Central Electricity Authority,
Page 37 of 66


a statutory body, which shall deal with undergrounding where possible,
and where not, recommend BFDs on a case-by-case basis under section
16
68 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
28. While this submission is rooted in core electricity regulatory
oversight, we are of the view that when a committee, which also
comprises electricity regulation experts, has made recommendations on
an aspect of the interlinkage of electricity generation and species
protection, it would not be proper to further delegate the exercise to a new
body and delay the measures. This Court expedited the hearing for the
matter and nudged the Committee to submit its reports in a timely manner,
so that measures, as necessary, can be implemented as soon as

16
Section 68. Overhead lines.–
(1) An overhead line shall, with prior approval of the Appropriate Government, be installed or kept
installed above ground in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2).
(2) The provisions contained in sub-section (1) shall not apply--
(a) in relation to an electric line which has a nominal voltage not exceeding 11 kilovolts and is used or
intended to be used for supplying to a single consumer;
(b) in relation to so much of an electric line as is or will be within premises in the occupation or control
of the person responsible for its installation; or
(c) in such other cases, as may be prescribed.
(3) The Appropriate Government shall, while granting approval under sub-section (1), impose such
conditions (including conditions as to the ownership and operation of the line) as appear to it to be
necessary.
(4) The Appropriate Government may vary or revoke the approval at any time after the end of such
period as may be stipulated in the approval granted by it.
(5) Where any tree standing or lying near an overhead line or where any structure or other object which
has been placed or has fallen near an overhead line subsequent to the placing of such line, interrupts
or interferes with, or is likely to interrupt or interfere with, the conveyance or transmission of electricity
or the accessibility of any works, an Executive Magistrate or authority specified by the Appropriate
Government may, on the application of the licensee, cause the tree, structure or object to be removed
or otherwise dealt with as he or it thinks fit.
(6) When disposing of an application under sub-section (5), an Executive Magistrate or authority
specified under that sub-section shall, in the case of any tree in existence before the placing of the
overhead line, award to the person interested in the tree such compensation as he thinks reasonable,
and such person may recover the same from the licensee.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the expression "tree" shall be deemed to include any
shrub, hedge, jungle growth or other plant.
Page 38 of 66


possible. In an exercise where time is of the essence, we do not find it
fitting to delegate the matter for further consideration.
29. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
Sustainable Power Developers Association (SPDA), which is representing
the interests of solar power developers, submits that more than 21 solar
energy generation projects are awaiting permission under section 68 of
the Electricity Act, 2003. If these permissions are granted, these 21
projects can be completed soon, resulting in the production of more than
9000 MW of power. Arguing so, Mr. Maninder Singh opposes the prayers
made by the Petitioners regarding an increase in the revised priority area,
establishing a power line corridor, undergrounding of lines above 66kV,
installation of BFD, etc.
30. Mr. Maninder Singh invites our attention to previous judgments and
orders of this Court in Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide
17
,
Fund-India v. Union of India T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v.
18
, and
Union of India U. P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul
19
and argues that the views/recommendations of Expert
Singh

17
(2013) 8 SCC 234.
18
Judgment dated 13.02.2012 in W.P. 202/1995 (Protection of Red Sandalwood); T N Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India.
19
(2018) 7 SCC 254.
Page 39 of 66


Committees have been traditionally accepted by this Court, and the same
should be done in the instant case.
31. As Mr. Maninder Singh’s submissions before us are majorly for
accepting the recommendations of the Expert Committee, we will be
dealing with these submissions when we examine and consider the Expert
Committee recommendations.
32. Mr. Vishrov Mukerjee, learned counsel appearing for Wind
Independent Power Producers Association, an association of wind power
developers, submits that wind projects stand on a different footing than
solar projects and therefore recommendations in respect to solar projects
are inapplicable to wind generators.
33. Mr. Mukerjee argues that instead of undergrounding cables, BFDs
shall be resorted to as they are much more effective. Mr. Mukerjee also
seeks a declaration from this Court to treat the April 2021 order as a
change in law event and allow wind power projects in the Priority and
Potential areas which have been commissioned prior to 19.04.2021 to
continue with overhead transmission lines with installation of appropriate
mitigation measures such as BFDs and any other measures suggested
by the Committee and exclude Wind Power Projects from the requirement
of undergrounding transmission lines in the Priority and Potential areas.
Page 40 of 66


34. We have made it clear to Mr. Mukerjee that the issue arising for
consideration relating to problems caused by transmission lines have got
nothing to do with the source of generation of power, be it thermal, hydro,
solar or wind. In any event of the matter, as the Committee has not
considered the distinction between solar and wind generations, we are not
inclined to consider the submissions at this stage.
35. : The
CSR to include Corporate Environmental Responsibility
legal formation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India is
intended to mark a paradigm shift from voluntary philanthropy to statutory
obligation. Under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, Parliament
institutionalized this duty by mandating companies to meet specific
financial thresholds espousing social responsibility. This provision
effectively codifies the principle that corporate profit is not solely the
private property of shareholders but is partly owed to the society that
enables its generation. The magic of legitimacy is in the perspective that
private property is a trust .
36. This statutory mandate redefines the traditional role of corporate
governance. Historically, a director's primary duty was to maximize value
for shareholders. However, Section 166(2) of the Companies Act, 2013
dismantled this narrow view by imposing a broader fiduciary duty.
Directors are now legally mandated to act in good faith not just for
Page 41 of 66


members, but for the " best interests of the company, its employees, the
shareholders, the community, and for the protection of environment. " This
crucial expansion recognizes that a corporation is an organ of society, and
its "social" responsibility extends to the wider community impacted by its
operations.
37. The definition of "community" within the CSR framework has been
expanded to explicitly include the natural world, cementing the link
between social welfare and environmental health. Schedule VII of the
Companies Act, 2013 enumerates permissible CSR activities, specifically
listing " ensuring environmental sustainability, ecological balance,
protection of flora and fauna, animal welfare, and conservation of natural
resources. " By categorizing these ecological activities as "social"
responsibility, the law acknowledges that as human beings, we cannot
“own” or “use” environment for “our purpose”. The corporate duty must
evolve from merely protecting the shareholders to protecting the
ecosystem that we all inhabit.
38. Therefore, the corporate definition of "Social Responsibility" must
inherently include "Environmental Responsibility." Companies cannot
assert to be socially responsible while ignoring equal claims of the
environment and other beings of the ecosystem. The Constitution of India,
under Article 51A(g), imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen " to
Page 42 of 66


protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes,
rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures ." A
corporation, as a legal person and a key organ of society, shares this
fundamental duty. CSR funds are the tangible expression of this duty.
Consequently, allocating funds for the protection of environment is not a
voluntary act of charity but a fulfilment of a constitutional obligation.
39. The obligation to protect endangered species is paramount. In
Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India (supra), this Court
emphasized the "Species Best Interest" standard, prioritizing the survival
of endangered species over commercial or industrial interests. Where
corporate activities such as mining, power generation, or infrastructure
threaten the habitat of endangered species, the "Polluter Pays" principle
mandates that the company bears the cost of species recovery. CSR
funds must, therefore, be directed towards ex-situ and in-situ conservation
efforts to prevent extinction.
40. The non-renewable power generators operating in the priority as
well as non-priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat must always
remember that they share the environment with the Godawan , the Great
Indian Bustard and must undertake their activities as if they are guests in
its abode.
Page 43 of 66


20
41. Submissions by Petitioner with Objection to Committee’s
recommendation: Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel, accepts
most of the recommendations made by the Committee and suggests that
the following measures, as suggested by the Committee must be
implemented at the earliest.
42. Recommendations of the Committee with respect to Rajasthan that
the Petitioner accepts:

a. Modification of the Priority Area from 13,163 sq. kms. to 14,013 sq.
kms.
b. Initiation of restoration, conservation and consolidation of grassland
ecosystem in India, along with the identification of five such critical
sites.
c. Key measures for in-situ conservation, read with Paragraphs 71-72
of this Hon'ble Court's judgment dated 21.03.2024, including
declaration of important areas such as Degray Oran as
Conservation/Community Reserve
d. Project GIB along with its funding
e. Monitoring of GIBs and their habitats

20
The reference to Petitioner(s)/submission by Petitioner(s) in the text of the judgment is with respect
to Petitioner(s) in Writ Petition (C) No. 838 of 2019, unless specified otherwise.
Page 44 of 66


f. Continuation of study by WII regarding impact of climate change on
GIBs
g. Powerline Corridor through the Revised Priority Area
h. No mitigation measures for existing and future powerlines of 11kV
and below within 100m of the settlement boundary
i. No new wind turbines, no new solar parks/plants of more than 2MW,
no expansion of existing solar parks and wind farms to be allowed
within the Revised Priority Area
j. Identified 80km of 33kV powerlines to be undergrounded
immediately
k. Identified nine 66kV and above lines to be re-routed immediately in
a powerline corridor, with horizontal configuration.
43. Recommendations of the Committee with respect to Gujarat that the
Petitioner accepts:
l. Modification of Priority Area from 500 sq. kms. to 740 sq. kms.
m. Key measures for in-situ conservation along with specific
suggestions for the State of Gujarat such as designation of
important areas (like Naliya Grassland and other associated areas)
as Conservation Reserve; removal of non-native plantation etc.
Page 45 of 66


n. Project GIB and its funding
o. Monitoring of GIBs and their habitats
p. Continuation of study by WII regarding impact of climate change on
GIBs
q. No mitigation measures for existing and future powerlines within
100m of the settlement boundary
r. No new wind turbines, no new solar parks/plants of more than 2MW,
no expansion of existing solar parks and wind farms to be allowed
within the Revised Priority Area.
s. Identified 79.2km of 33kV powerlines within the Revised Priority
Area to be undergrounded or re-routed outside the Revised Priority
Area
t. Identified nine critical 66kV lines (total 64.9 km) to be immediately
undergrounded
u. Two powerline corridors through the Revised Priority Area
v. All mitigation measures to be adopted and implemented within 2
years
44.
Objections/Additional measures suggested by Petitioners:
Over and above the measures suggested by the Committee, though in the
Page 46 of 66


written submissions, detailed objections are articulated, Mr. Divan
confined his submissions to the following measures. In fact, after having
disposed of the objections of the Power Developers, the issue arising for
our consideration will naturally be confined to the following
objections/suggestions which are as follows:
a. Drawing from the dissent note, Mr. Divan suggests that the area of
657 sq. km for the Rasla region must be added to the Revised
Priority Area in Rajasthan to avoid fragmentation of the Revised
Priority Area (total of 14,670 sq. kms).
b. There ought to be mitigation measures in the Potential Areas (i.e.,
areas outside the Revised Priority Areas). These measures include:
i. All future lines to run through a powerline corridor.
ii. All existing and future lines must be marked with BFDs.
c. No new overhead powerlines (except 11kV and below) in the
Revised Priority Areas.
d. No limestone or other mines in the priority areas or the revised
priority areas.
e. The leases of existing wind turbines ought not to be renewed and
the turbines in the revised priority areas be dismantled once their
life is over.
Page 47 of 66


f. All existing and new powerlines of 11kV and below in the Revised
Priority Area ought to be converted into Aerial Bunched Cables.
g. 250km of critical powerlines in Rajasthan, as identified by Wildlife
Institute of India, ought to be directed to be undergrounded in a time
bound manner not exceeding 12 months.
h. All powerlines of 400kV and below ought to be
(1) undergrounded; or
(2) rerouted in a powerline corridor in a time-bound manner.
These lines be marked with good quality BFD until they are
undergrounded/re-routed.
i. Mitigation of two lines of 400 kV from Bhachunda-Varsana (approx.
11.5 kms) in the State of Gujarat in the manner suggested in the
Dissent Note to the Gujarat Report.
j. All existing powerlines of 765kV must be marked with BFDs.
45. Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, learned senior counsel, joined Mr.
Divan and made arguments on environment protection, particularly the
need to take a shift from the anthropocentric to ecocentric approaches of
environmental conservation.
46. Analysis: We will now deal with each of the objections/suggestions
as articulated hereinabove:
Page 48 of 66


A. Re: Inclusion of 657 sq. kms to the Revised Priority Area in
Rajasthan

47. The Committee has recommended that the priority area of 13,163
sq. km. as per this Court’s order dated 21.03.2024, is extremely important
for GIB conservation and hence kept intact, however, the additional
important area of 5977 sq. km., as mentioned in para 51 of the Supreme
Court judgement, was deliberated upon by the committee, and the
Committee has decided to entirely exclude (except for some critical
patches) the additional important area due to the following reasons:
a. The area (particularly the northern arm) has relatively fewer GIB
sightings and is important for the transmission of power that may
be generated towards the west of the priority area in the future.
b. The area has intensive agriculture due to irrigation and requires the
addition of power capacity. The lower arm, on the other hand, is
important for renewable energy production and already has a
dense network of power lines that is difficult to mitigate.
48. While the Committee excludes the area and nomenclature of
additional important areas altogether, it also felt that some parts of the
existing additional important areas are very important for conservation of
the GIB and should be retained for addition to the Priority Area.
Furthermore, some more areas, were recommended for inclusion in the
Page 49 of 66


Priority Area based on GIB sightings, habitat suitability, and importance
for other associated species. In this view, a total area of 850 sq. km,
consisting of GIB habitats around i) Sam (such as grasslands adjoining
Rojani ki Basti, Hameero ki Basti, Turke ki Basti), ii) Netsi and iii) southern
boundary of PFFR (particularly Lathi, Dholiya, Chacha, Odhaniya) was
recommended for addition to the Priority Area.
49. The Committee also excluded a minimal 0.005 sq. km. area from
existing priority area observing that “the area is surrounded by irrigated
agriculture and is close to the Chandhan village, making it an unsuitable
21
habitat for the GIB.” The revised priority area for Rajasthan, as
recommended by the committee, shall be 14,013 sq. km. However, in
such modifications, the Committee has excluded the area around Rasla-
Degray/Degrai Oran Enclave.
50. The Petitioners submit that there is a major oversight in the priority
area with respect to Rasla-Degrai Oran Enclave which comprises an area
of 657 sq. km. between Rasla Enclosure and the boundary of Priority Area
and invites our attention to the recent order of this Court dated 18.12.2024
22
in whereby this Court had
T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UoI & Ors
directed the State to identify, survey, and notify Orans and similar sacred

21
Committee Report (Rajasthan), Paragraph, 26(b)(iii).
22
I.A. No. 41723/2022 in WP (C) No. 202/1995.
Page 50 of 66


groves as forest land, reflecting both their cultural significance and
ecological value. Per Petitioners, the area around Rasla is very important
as Rasla and Degrai are locations where populations have been sighted
during the breeding season. The area of 657 sq. km. lies between the
Pokharan and Rasla-Degray Oran regions, which also serve as a
wintering site and a stopover for GIBs when they fly from the relatively
safe zones in Pokhran to and from the Desert National Park. Petitioners
submit that due to this exclusion, which was once an additionally important
area, the Rasla Priority Area has been reduced to an island with no
connectivity with the adjoining priority area of the Pokhran region.
51. The anxiety of the Petitioners is that once an area is removed from
a priority area and in the absence of any additional important area, there
will be no protection in the region for GIBs, including BFDs. This
apprehension is not without merit, petitioners argue, highlighting the
dissenting note as to how additional important areas play a significant role
as a corridor, and the significance of the Rasla region becomes apparent
in this light. Noting so, the dissenting note recommends the following:
“4.5 Recommendations for Additionally Important Areas of
Rajasthan
4.5.1. Considering all the ecological insights and information
mentioned above, my humble submission is as follows.
4.5.2. The removal of the entire southern arm of the original
additionally important area will lead to a) the loss of connectivity
between the two subpopulations through the south, as the corridor
Page 51 of 66


between the Degrai Oran and Revised Priority Area is compromised,
b) if the existing lines (33Kv and above) in this area are not mitigated
with bird flight diverter, it would pose a high risk of collision to
bustards and all the other associated threatened avian species of the
topography, leading to significant bird mortality c) adding new lines
in this area would also add to the existing threat and may further
compromise the safety of all the threatened bird species. Therefore,
I submit the following recommendations.
4.5.3. The area between the Rasla Enclosure and the boundary of
the Priority Area, 52pprox. 657 sq km., shown within the black
boundary in the Map-2 above, should be merged with the ‘Revised
Priority Area’ to maintain connectivity between Pokharan and Rasla
Priority Areas.
The Degrai Oran area is an important habitat for bustards, and
4.5.4.
many other threatened fauna; however, to maintain a balance
between the conservation of critically endangered species and
development, the PGCIL’s Fatehgarh-2 Substation Area (~2 km2) is
excluded from the suggested polygon, shown as ‘3’ in Map-2. The
remaining area within this polygon has important bustard habitats
and grazing grounds crucial for birds and local communities.
4.5.5. The addition of new and expansion of existing solar parks and
wind farms should be prohibited in this area, as it would further lead
to loss of habitat for birds and loss of grazing ground for local
communities’ livestock. A majority of the local communities here are
associated with pastoralism and these habitats also serve as their
traditional grazing grounds. Thus, preserving these habitats will also
be beneficial to the pastoralist communities.
4.5.6. All the existing lines in these areas (except 11Kv and below)
should be marked with Bird Flight Diverter (BFD), as per the
installation design given at para 18.2. of this note.
4.5.7. No new overhead lines (except 11Kv and below) should be
allowed in this area. The existing and new powerlines (only of 11Kv
and below) should also be installed with Aerial Bunched Cable, and
marked with BFD in ‘critical areas’ identified following the
recommendations made at Para 11.2.4 of this note.”

52. Having considered the matter in detail and taking a holistic view for
rationalisation of the priority area with respect to Rajasthan, the
Committee recommended that, “The lower arm, on the other hand, is
important for renewable energy production and already has a dense
Page 52 of 66


23
network of power lines that is difficult to mitigate”. The conclusion of the
Committee is based on field visits and stakeholder consultation.
53. As an important step towards conservation, the Committee took the
decision of including an extent of 20 sq. kms around Rasla as an integral
part of the revised priority area itself. The revised priority area, of 14,013
sq. kms therefore, includes 20 sq. km area with and around Rasla.
Additionally, the contiguous area has already been declared the Desert
National Park, having its own stringent regulatory measures. The
Committee noted the difficulty of bringing about any variation in the
existing network of power lines as there exist couple of power sub-stations
in the area. Having taken a holistic view, the Committee was of the opinion
that the revised priority area, coupled with the additionally important area,
is adequate for habitat sustainability of GIB.
54. To bring about efficient regulatory measure, the units of Eco Task
Force can be deployed even in these areas and in fact the Committee has
specifically recommended such measure in para 32(e)(ii) where it has
recommended that “Units of the Eco Task Force can be engaged for
protection and day-to-day management of the proposed enclosures within
the Field Firing Range. Similarly, units of the Eco Task Force currently

23
Committee Report (Rajasthan), Paragraph, 26(b)(i).
Page 53 of 66


deployed in DNP can be used for protection activities in neighbouring non-
protected areas as well.”
55. The Committee’s recommendation also finds ground in the fact that
there is already a dense network of existing power lines from 765 Kv
Fatehgarh-I Substation and 765 Kv Fatehgarh-II Substation in the
adverted 657 sq. km area forming part of the proposed potential area,
from which large quantum of renewable power is being exported.
56. The measures suggested by the Committee regarding community
engagement clearly include that, after considering the matter, the State of
Rajasthan shall endeavour to designate areas around Dholiya, Khetolai,
Chacha, Rasla and Degrai Oran , etc., as community reserves and should
be managed with participation of local communities.
57. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the measures
suggested by the Committee are adequate. Over and above that, we are
of the opinion that effective and efficient regulatory measures by the
concerned duty bearers of conservation will be taken periodically as and
when required and will prove effective and beneficial in the long term.
B. Re: Even with respect to Non-Priority Areas, all Future Lines
should Run through Power Line Corridors
Page 54 of 66


58. It is suggested that mitigation measures must be undertaken for the
areas outside the revised priority area. For this purpose, it is
recommended that all future lines be routed through power line corridors.
59. As regards the suggestion to provide a powerline corridor even with
respect to areas outside the revised priority area, we are of the opinion
that the Committee has identified that GIB movements are majorly
confined to the Revised Priority area, in which two corridors have already
been proposed by the Expert Committee to meet the objective. However,
we direct that in the cases of dedicated lines starting from different
Renewable Energy (‘RE’) Pooling stations, but terminating at a common
Grid Pooling station, the routes shall be optimised in such a way that they
share a maximum common stretch to the extent possible. Equally, in case
of lines starting from different RE plants, but terminating at a common RE
Pooling station, their routes may be optimised in such a way that they also
share a maximum common stretch to the extent possible. There shall be
a direction to the concerned authorities to ensure this requirement.
C. Re: All Existing and Future Lines must be marked with Bird
Flight Divertors (‘BFDs’)
60. After recommending the rerouting of certain powerlines for ensuring
consolidation of GIB strongholds, the committee observes that such
rerouting will nullify the requirement of additional mitigation measures,
Page 55 of 66


24
such as the installation of Bird Flight Diverters. Commenting on
additional mitigation measures for both States, the committee
recommends measures on case-by-case basis to be decided by local
25
Forest Departments and observes that :
26
“ 44. (h) (…) BFD are known to reduce bird collisions significantly ,
27
except in the case of bustards where their effectiveness is lower . These
devices come with installation and maintenance costs. Depending on the
landscape, additional modifications may be necessary to install diverters
effectively. Despite all investments and all possible modifications, the bird
diverters can help to mitigate only a singular threat. Moreover, its efficacy
in reducing bird mortality (particularly GIB) is far from proven in the Indian
context. Since more than 50% of the transmission lines in the revised
priority area already have bird diverters, it allows for evaluating the
efficacy of the existing bird diverters before recommending the use of
such measures. Bird flight diverters may offer a quick fix to a specific
problem (collision with power lines) if at all its efficacy is proven but they
would be cost-intensive due to recurring maintenance issues on account
of reported poor quality. Strategic planning of power lines and targeted
habitat management, on the other hand, provides long-term benefits and
a sustainable solution that will not only help the GIB, but it will also tackle
broader ecological problems, benefiting the entire ecosystem. Given the
unproven efficacy of BFDs and the high cost involved in installation and
maintenance of the same, spending such a huge amount may not be in
the overall interest of common consumers as the same shall be
eventually passed on to them. Therefore, the committee is of considerate
view to presently focus more on other measures as recommended in the
preceding paras. The committee also recommends that an ongoing study
by WII for assessing the effectiveness of bird flight diverters in reducing
collision mortality of birds with power lines shall be done within a year
and recommendations submitted to the Ministry for further
consideration.”
(emphasis supplied)

24
Committee Report (Rajasthan), pg. 40.
25
Committee Report (Rajasthan), pg. 42.
26
Barrientos, Rafael, et al. “Meta ‐ analysis of the effectiveness of marked wire in reducing avian
collisions with power lines.” Conservation Biology 25.5 (2011): 893-903.
27
Silva, Joao Paulo, et al. “The effects of powerlines on bustards: how best to mitigate, how best to
monitor?” Bird Conservation International 33 (2023): e30.
Page 56 of 66


61. The view of the Committee with respect to deployment of BFDs is in
consonance with Indian experience about maintenance. Apart from the
effectiveness of BFDs, which is a matter of science, maintenance is an
issue that is integrally connected to the institutional discipline, which
means that there must be a regular follow-up of the maintenance of the
instruments, particularly since a large number of these instruments are
deployed, and the human resources, coupled with the discipline to
maintain them with regularity and efficiency is a big issue for public
administration. For this reason, we are inclined to accept the suggestion
of the Committee to await detailed studies undertaken by WII for the
assessment and effectiveness of BFDs. We therefore direct the
authorities to ensure that at least one agency, apart from WII, assesses
the efficiency and effectiveness of BFDs at the same time and undertakes
a pilot project in some areas before making final recommendations.
62. The real test before deployment of these instruments is twin-fold.
Firstly, they must be durable and long lasting. Secondly, they must
virtually be maintenance free. As the issue relating to deployment of BFDs
is integrally connected to effectiveness of the device and efficiency in its
maintenance, we are not inclined to give a direction to deploy them.
However, in view of the ideas expressed in:
Page 57 of 66


a. Affidavit filed on 15.03.2021 on behalf of the Ministry of Power in
the present case states that the CEA has suggested the installation
of bird diverters on high voltage lines in the critical areas. The
affidavit further stated that BFDs are to be placed on identified
stretches to prevent collisions between birds and transmission
lines.
b. Wildlife institute of India in its presentation to the Expert Committee
has recommended the use of good quality of BFD as a mitigation
measure on overhead lines.
63. We direct the Inspector General, Wildlife Division, MoEFCC,
Government of India, to ensure that necessary studies are undertaken
and take appropriate action for its deployment.
D. Re: Regarding no new overhead powerlines (except 11kV and
below) in the revised priority areas and leases of existing wind
turbines not to be renewed
64. Petitioners submit that no new lines ought to be allowed in the
Revised Priority Areas (even through a dedicated powerline corridor) as
these areas are now the last remaining habitat of bustard, which ought to
be kept sacrosanct and free from further appearance of overhead
powerlines/renewable energy projects.
Page 58 of 66


65. As regards future power lines in the revised priority area, the
Committee examined the issue in detail and has given a clear and
categorical recommendation. It is necessary to extract the relevant portion
for clarity and certainty:
“43. Further, as per para 66(e), with regards to balancing sustainable
development and GIB conservation in the matter of laying future power
lines. It is also noted that Power generated from the RE generators is
evacuated through power lines of 11 kV and 33 kV lines, which are owned
by RE generators and further transmission of this power is done through
high voltage lines (66 kV and above voltage level) which are owned by
State Transmission utilities and also by Transmission Service Providers
(TSPs) and further power will be distributed by Distribution lines (LV, 11
kV and 33 kV) which Electricity Distribution companies own. Extension of
distribution lines right up to end use is necessary if the distribution network
supplies the electricity. Considering both the historical and recent decline
of the GIB for many reasons, not only due to transmission lines, the
committee recommends measures which include mitigation of all threats,
including the need for habitat management across the GIB areas in the
State of Rajasthan. The details of the specific interventions for GIB areas
in Rajasthan are given below:
(…)
(d)
Restrictions on future renewable energy projects within the
Revised Priority Areas of Rajasthan: Considering the risk posed to the
GIBs, LFs and other associated species now surviving in the last
remaining habitats of the revised priority areas, it is proposed that no new
overhead powerlines except through dedicated power corridors (except
11kV and below capacities with mitigation or as in 43c above) and no new
Wind turbine should be allowed in the revised Priority Area. New solar
parks/plants of more than 2 MW capacity and expansion of existing solar
parks should not be allowed within revised Priority Areas. This relaxation
will help in the generation of renewable energy by local communities to
meet part of their increasing electricity demand and avail various
government schemes.
As per present Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)
regulations, new renewable energy plants with a capacity of less than
50MW are not eligible for connection to the Inter-State Transmission
System (ISTS). Further, in case of capacity enhancement of any existing
plant after 50 MW, the minimum capacity required for ISTS connection is
5 MW. Thus, the relaxation for solar plants up to 2 MW would not lead to
additional habitat loss for the Great Indian Bustard.”
Page 59 of 66


66. There is a similar recommendation for the State of Gujarat as
following:
“ 15. Committee's recommendations regarding laying future power
lines and energy infrastructure in the revised Priority area : It was
agreed that general recommendations for mitigating the threat to GIB from
powerlines and energy infrastructure in Rajasthan should apply to Gujarat
as well. Thus, the committee ratified the recommendations made in paras
43c and 43d of the Rajasthan report. Additionally, and similar to 43b of
the Rajasthan Report, the committee recommended that no blanket
restriction should be kept on laying new power lines outside the revised
priority area.
(…)
c. Restrictions on future renewable energy projects within the
Revised Priority Areas of Gujarat: ….. (Ref: Para 43d of Rajasthan
report)
(…)
Taking into account
19. Power connections for agricultural purposes:
both the ecology of the GIB and LF - which uses agricultural areas - and
the agricultural dependence of people living in the revised priority area of
Gujarat, the committee reiterates its suggestion mentioned in para 15 and
16 of this report, that no additional restrictions should be placed on
providing domestic and agricultural connections to people living within the
revised priority area.”

67. The proposal of the Committee is accepted, and it is directed that
no new overhead powerlines except through dedicated power corridors
(except 11kV and below capacities) and no new Wind turbines should be
allowed in the revised Priority Area. Furthermore, it is directed that new
solar parks/plants with a capacity exceeding 2 MW and the expansion of
existing solar parks should not be permitted within the revised Priority
Areas.
Page 60 of 66


E. Re: Prohibition on limestone or other mines in the priority
areas or revised priority areas
68. Petitioners submit that the Court should prohibit limestone or other
mining in the priority areas or revised priority areas. Though the issue of
mining in the province of GIB was not under scrutiny in our orders dated
19.04.2021 and 21.03.2024 or in the expert committee report, we are of
the opinion that mining, even of minor minerals, is subject to the regulatory
regimes under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957, the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and such relevant statutes.
The statutory authorities, as well as the regulators, will certainly be aware
of the fragility and importance of this area, and we believe that no
decisions will be made that would even marginally impinge upon the
conservation and protection of GIB.
F. Re: Conversion of existing and installation of new 11 kV and
below Powerlines as Aerial Bunched Cables in Revised Priority
Areas
69. Petitioners submit that all existing powerlines and all new
powerlines of 11 kV and below in the Revised Priority Area ought to be
insulated and should be converted and installed as Aerial Bunched
Cables. With respect to distribution Mitigation of distribution lines (11kV
and below) in the revised Priority Area of Rajasthan, the recommendation
of the Committee are as under:
Page 61 of 66


“ 44 (a). Mitigation of distribution lines (11kV and below) in the
Providing electricity to all residents
revised Priority Area of Rajasthan:
through underground transmission lines will be very difficult and
economically very costly. Overhead lines with insulated power cables will
eliminate the possibility of electrocution. The committee suggests that all
lines of 11 kV and below may be mitigated using an insulated cable in
horizontal configuration or insulated cables with bunching. In addition, if
any new power line is allowed on forest land or other critical area, the
same should be preferably laid underground...”
70. We are not inclined to direct the conversion of powerlines into aerial
bunching. Instead, there shall be a direction that all lines of 11 kV and
below may be mitigated using an insulated cable in a horizontal
configuration or insulated cables with bunching.
G. Re: Undergrounding of 250 Km of critical power lines identified
by WII in Rajasthan in a time-bound manner
71. It is absolutely necessary to implement this recommendation with
expedition. For this purpose, we direct that the Inspector General, Wildlife
Division, MoEFCC, Government of India, as a duty-bearer, will be
responsible for overseeing and implementing the recommendations of the
Committee as approved by us within two years from the date of our order.
H. Re: Mandatory Undergrounding or Time-Bound Rerouting of
All Powerlines (400 kV and Below)
72. Petitioners submit that the critical powerlines located within the
Revised Priority Area should be undergrounded wherever feasible. It is
submitted that WII has already identified approximately 250 km of critical
powerlines that pose a high risk and therefore directions should be issued
Page 62 of 66


for their immediate undergrounding. Where undergrounding is found to be
infeasible, the powerlines should be rerouted outside the Revised Priority
Area through a designated powerline corridor, petitioners submit.
73. We are not inclined to take a different view of the matter as the
Committee has taken stock of the issue.
I. Re: Mitigation of two lines of 400 kV from Bhachunda-Varsana
of approx. 11.5 Kms
74. Petitioners submit that the two 400 kV lines listed at serial numbers
1 and 2 of the table, running from Bhachunda to Varsana (approximately
11.5 km), are not existing lines as only the pylons have been installed. It
is further argued that no approval for the erection of these lines was
granted by the erstwhile three-member Court-appointed Committee, as is
evident from its report dated 07.02.2024. Moreover, the pylons were
installed even before any application for permission was made to the
erstwhile Committee, which has recorded the matter as one seeking post
facto approval. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioners submit that if
the line is permitted to remain without appropriate mitigation, it would pose
a very high risk to the existing population of the GIB.
75. These lines have been taken note of by the Committee as reflected
in Annexures to the Committee Report and suggested the required
measures. We are not inclined to take a different view on this aspect.
Page 63 of 66



76. Directions: In terms of the conclusions arrived at in the foregoing
analysis, we direct as under:
i. The revised priority area for Rajasthan, as recommended by the
Expert Committee, shall be 14,013 sq. kms., and the revised priority
area for Gujarat, as recommended by the committee, shall be 740
sq. kms.
ii. The measures recommended by the committee for in-situ and ex-
situ conservation of GIB within the priority areas of Rajasthan and
Gujarat shall be implemented forthwith.
iii. Recommendations of the committee with respect to the monitoring
of GIB in the revised priority areas shall be given effect immediately.
iv. Recommendation of the committee for the conduct of long-term
studies on the effects of climate change on GIB must be conducted.
v. Recommendations of the committee for providing a power corridor
of up to 5 km width, which will be at a distance of 5 km or more to
the south of the southern-most enclosure of Desert National Park,
are accepted.
vi. Recommendations of the committee negating the necessity for
Mitigation of existing and future power lines of 11 kV and below
voltage in the 100-metre buffer around the settlement is accepted.
Page 64 of 66


vii. Restrictions as stipulated by the committee on future renewable
energy projects within the Revised Priority Areas of Rajasthan are
approved.
viii. The committee’s recommendation pertaining to the immediate
undergrounding of 80 km of 33 kV line in Rajasthan is accepted.
ix. Recommendations of the committee pertaining to the Mitigation of
33 kV lines in the revised Priority Area of Rajasthan is accepted.
x. Recommendations of the committee regarding the rerouting of
certain specific existing lines of 66kV and above in the revised
Priority Area of Rajasthan shall be done in a time-bound manner.
xi. All the mitigation measures such as undergrounding, rerouting as
suggested in the Committee Report should be started immediately
and completed within two years from the date of our order.
xii. In the cases of dedicated lines starting from different RE Pooling
stations, but terminating at a common Grid Pooling station, the
routes shall be optimised in such a way that they share a maximum
common stretch to the extent possible.
xiii. In case of lines starting from different RE plants, but terminating at
a common RE Pooling station, their routes may be optimised in such
a way that they also share a maximum common stretch to the extent
Page 65 of 66


possible. There shall be a direction to the concerned authorities to
ensure this requirement.
xiv. The competent authority will engage with the issue of BFDs and take
appropriate action, based on scientific analysis, for its deployment.
xv. The competent authority will ensure the undergrounding of 250 km
of critical power lines identified by WII in Rajasthan in a time-bound
manner not exceeding more than 2 years.
xvi. Other recommendations of the Committee, which are in addition to
the above directions, will be implemented as soon as possible.
77. With these directions, the writ petition(s) and civil appeal are
disposed of. Pending applications including the applications for
intervention/impleadment are also disposed of accordingly.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J.
[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]
NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 19, 2025
Page 66 of 66