Introduction:
In MK Ranjitsinh & Others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark environmental and corporate governance judgment that significantly expanded the contours of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by firmly embedding it within the framework of Corporate Environmental Responsibility. A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, while adjudicating long-pending litigation concerning the protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (Godawan), held that corporations cannot claim social responsibility while disregarding the environmental consequences of their operations. The Court unequivocally declared that CSR under the Companies Act, 2013 is not a matter of voluntary philanthropy but a statutory and constitutional obligation rooted in Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which mandates protection of the natural environment and compassion for living creatures. The judgment arises at the intersection of wildlife conservation, renewable energy expansion, and corporate accountability, and marks a decisive shift towards recognising that economic development and environmental stewardship must proceed together. By linking CSR to the Polluter Pays principle and the Species Best Interest standard, the Court placed corporations at the centre of environmental governance, holding them answerable for ecological harm caused by infrastructure projects, particularly in fragile habitats supporting endangered species.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, led by environmentalist M.K. Ranjitsinh, approached the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking urgent judicial intervention to prevent the extinction of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, species whose populations had plummeted due to habitat degradation and fatal collisions with overhead transmission lines. They argued that despite India’s international and constitutional commitments to biodiversity conservation, state and corporate actions had prioritised infrastructure expansion over ecological survival. The petitioners emphasised that the Great Indian Bustard, once widespread across the subcontinent, now survives in a few fragmented grassland pockets in Rajasthan and Gujarat, making it acutely vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures.
A central plank of the petitioners’ argument was that overhead power lines posed the single greatest mortality risk to the species, as the bustards’ limited frontal vision made them unable to detect wires in flight. They relied heavily on scientific studies and reports of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) demonstrating repeated bustard deaths due to collisions. On this basis, the petitioners supported the Supreme Court’s 2021 order imposing a near-total ban on overhead transmission lines across approximately 99,000 square kilometres of priority habitat and argued against any dilution of this protection.
The petitioners further contended that renewable energy corporations operating wind and solar projects in these regions had externalised environmental costs while reaping substantial economic benefits. They asserted that corporate entities could not hide behind the narrative of “green energy” while destroying biodiversity, and that CSR obligations must be interpreted to include direct funding and implementation of conservation measures. According to the petitioners, the Companies Act, 2013 and Schedule VII explicitly recognised environmental sustainability and protection of wildlife as CSR activities, making corporate contribution to bustard conservation a legal necessity rather than an option.
They opposed proposals to relax restrictions on transmission lines or rely on technological fixes such as bird diverters without robust scientific validation. The petitioners also sought expansion of priority conservation areas, particularly the inclusion of the Rasla–Degrai Oran region in Rajasthan, arguing that grasslands traditionally used by local communities were critical to the species’ long-term survival. Overall, the petitioners urged the Court to adopt an ecocentric approach, placing the survival of endangered species above short-term developmental or corporate interests.
Arguments on Behalf of the Union of India and Corporate Stakeholders:
The Union Government, supported by renewable energy developers and power transmission corporations, acknowledged the ecological importance of protecting the Great Indian Bustard but cautioned against rigid judicial directions that could undermine India’s renewable energy commitments and climate change goals. It was argued that the 2021 blanket restriction on overhead transmission lines had far-reaching implications for India’s energy security and its international obligations to transition away from fossil fuels. The Government submitted that Rajasthan and Gujarat were critical hubs for solar and wind energy generation, and sweeping prohibitions could stall projects of national importance.
The respondents emphasised that renewable energy itself was an environmental good and that a balance had to be struck between biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. They argued that the Constitution did not mandate environmental absolutism and that sustainable development required harmonisation of competing interests. On CSR, the corporate stakeholders submitted that while environmental protection was an important component of CSR, it could not be transformed into a mechanism for imposing open-ended financial liabilities on companies. They contended that CSR spending under Section 135 of the Companies Act was subject to statutory limits and board discretion, and that compelling corporations to fund specific conservation projects through judicial orders risked overreach.
Regarding power infrastructure, the respondents supported the constitution of an Expert Committee to provide scientifically informed, practical solutions rather than blanket bans. They advocated targeted undergrounding of power lines in critical habitats, rerouting of transmission corridors, and selective use of bird diverters, coupled with ongoing research. The Union also opposed expansion of priority conservation areas beyond those recommended by experts, arguing that such decisions required nuanced assessment of ecological value, land use patterns, and socio-economic implications for local communities.
On the broader issue of corporate responsibility, the respondents maintained that CSR was designed as a collaborative mechanism between corporations, government, and civil society, not as a punitive tool. They urged the Court to avoid framing corporations as adversaries and instead promote cooperative conservation strategies aligned with national development objectives.
Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:
The Supreme Court, after an extensive examination of constitutional principles, statutory frameworks, scientific evidence, and expert recommendations, delivered a nuanced yet emphatic judgment that redefined the relationship between corporate activity and environmental responsibility. The Bench began by reaffirming that the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard was non-negotiable, describing the species as a shared natural heritage whose extinction would represent an irreversible ecological and moral failure.
At the heart of the judgment lies the Court’s doctrinal integration of CSR with environmental responsibility. Tracing the evolution of CSR in India, the Court noted that Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 marked a paradigmatic shift from voluntary charity to enforceable obligation. Corporate profits, the Court observed, are not purely private entitlements but are generated through the use of social and environmental resources, thereby creating reciprocal duties towards society. Referring to Section 166(2), the Bench underscored that directors are legally bound to act in good faith not only in the interests of shareholders but also of the community and the environment.
The Court rejected the artificial distinction between “social” and “environmental” responsibility, holding that Schedule VII of the Companies Act explicitly recognises environmental sustainability, ecological balance, and protection of flora and fauna as integral components of CSR. In powerful language, the Bench declared that corporations cannot claim to be socially responsible while ignoring the equal claims of the environment and other living beings. Invoking Article 51A(g), the Court held that corporations, as legal persons and key organs of society, share the fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment and to show compassion for living creatures. CSR funds, the Court ruled, are the tangible expression of this duty and cannot be treated as discretionary philanthropy.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court held that where corporate activities contribute to habitat degradation or pose risks to endangered species, the obligation to fund conservation flows naturally from the Polluter Pays principle and the Species Best Interest standard recognised in earlier jurisprudence. The Bench emphasised that renewable energy producers operating in bustard habitats must conduct themselves as “guests in the abode” of the species, undertaking activities with utmost restraint and responsibility.
On the issue of conservation strategy, the Court accepted the recommendations of the high-level Expert Committee constituted after the 2024 modification order. It approved revised priority conservation areas of 14,013 square kilometres in Rajasthan and 740 square kilometres in Gujarat, holding that these demarcations were based on rigorous field studies and stakeholder consultations. The Court declined to further expand the Rajasthan priority area by including the Rasla–Degrai Oran region, noting that judicial deference was owed to expert ecological assessments unless shown to be manifestly arbitrary.
Within these revised priority areas, the Court imposed strict restrictions on infrastructure development. It directed that no new wind turbines and no new solar parks or solar plants exceeding 2 MW capacity would be permitted, and that expansion of existing solar parks was barred. The Bench also prohibited new overhead power lines above 11 kV, except through dedicated corridors identified by the Expert Committee, thereby consolidating transmission infrastructure to minimise collision risks.
Rejecting the feasibility of blanket undergrounding, the Court adopted a targeted approach, directing immediate undergrounding of 80 kilometres of 33 kV lines in Rajasthan and approving rerouting or mitigation of several higher-capacity lines. It further ordered that approximately 250 kilometres of critical power lines identified by the Wildlife Institute of India must be undergrounded within two years, placing oversight responsibility on the Inspector General, Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
On the contentious issue of Bird Flight Diverters, the Court displayed scientific caution. While acknowledging their potential utility, it declined to mandate their universal deployment due to concerns regarding effectiveness, maintenance, and species-specific outcomes. Instead, it directed further scientific studies and pilot projects by the Wildlife Institute of India and at least one independent agency before any final policy decision.
The judgment placed substantial emphasis on in-situ conservation measures, including grassland restoration, predator management, community participation, and long-term monitoring of bustard populations. The Court also directed scaling up of Project Great Indian Bustard through CAMPA funding and mandated continued research into the impacts of climate change on the species. In doing so, the Bench reiterated that conservation and climate mitigation are complementary goals and must not be framed as mutually exclusive.
Disposing of the writ petitions and connected civil appeal, the Court made it unequivocally clear that corporations benefiting from natural landscapes must shoulder a proportionate share of responsibility for conserving them. The survival of the Great Indian Bustard, the Court concluded, is a constitutional imperative that binds the State, corporations, and citizens alike.