Ms. Advocate, if we accept your argument for mandatory undergrounding across the entire priority area, what do you say to the Union's estimate that this would force India to rely on 93,000 megawatts of coal, releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide, which itself will harm the GIB's habitat through climate change?

My Lord, the Union's estimate assumes a false binary. Underground cabling is required only for high-voltage transmission lines, not for every low-voltage distribution line. Moreover, the cost of undergrounding must be weighed against the cost of extinction — a species cannot be brought back once lost. The precautionary principle, established in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum, requires that where there is scientific uncertainty about the precise mortality caused by overhead lines, we must err on the side of conservation. Climate change is a gradual process; extinction of the GIB in the next decade due to power line collisions is immediate and certain based on the data.

But the Expert Committee, which included ornithologists and wildlife biologists, recommended against a blanket direction for bird flight diverters, citing concerns about maintenance and effectiveness. Why should we overrule domain experts?

My Lord, with respect, the Expert Committee's concern was about durability and institutional capacity for maintenance — not about the scientific principle that diverters reduce collisions. The Committee itself did not reject BFDs; it recommended further studies. Our submission is that the Court should not decline relief because of administrative capacity concerns. The Court can direct the government to build that capacity — hire personnel, train them, create monitoring systems — rather than abandon a potentially life-saving technology while the GIB population continues to decline to zero.

The petitioner earlier accepted a blanket ban across 99,000 square kilometers. Now the Expert Committee says only 14,753 square kilometers need stringent protection. Why should we not accept the Committee's narrower, evidence-based designation?

My Lord, the petitioner does not oppose the reduction in area based on better scientific data. Our grievance is that within the reduced priority area, the Court is permitting exceptions — exempting 11 kV lines within 100 meters of settlements, allowing new solar parks, delaying BFD deployment — that will cumulatively negate the protection. The GIB's population is so low that even a small number of additional collision deaths could push the species over the edge. We are asking for stringent, not blanket, protection within the scientifically identified boundaries.

Your argument seems to suggest that renewable energy has no environmental value and can be displaced anywhere. But India has international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. Does the Constitution not require balancing of competing environmental goods?

My Lord, we fully acknowledge India's climate commitments. The petitioner does not oppose renewable energy — only its location within the last remaining habitat of a critically endangered species. Renewable energy can be deployed in thousands of square kilometers outside the priority area. The Union has not shown that every single wind turbine and solar panel within these 14,753 square kilometers is indispensable. Strategic relocation, undergrounding, and curtailment are all feasible. The Constitution's balancing does not require the extinction of a species to save the climate — the two can and must coexist through targeted, proportionate measures.

For PetitionerEnvironmental Premium

Conservation Cannot Yield to Climate Mitigation — (2025) INSC 1472

The Great Indian Bustard is critically endangered with population below 200 individuals.

M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India — (2025) INSC 1472

Core Argument

The Great Indian Bustard is critically endangered with population below 200 individuals. Extinction is irreversible, whereas renewable energy can be relocated to less sensitive areas without compromising climate goals.

Key Precedents

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 — Established the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as part of Indian environmental jurisprudence, requiring courts to err on the side of conservation where there is scientific uncertainty about environmental harm.
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 — Affirmed that the precautionary principle places the burden of proof on the industrial developer to show that their activity will not cause irreversible environmental harm.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 324 — Held that conservation of forests and wildlife is not subordinate to development needs, and that the principle of sustainable development requires integration of environmental concerns into all development decisions.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in