Supreme Court Declares CSR a Constitutional Duty to Protect Environment: Orders Undergrounding of Powerlines in Great Indian Bustard Habitat

“CSR Is Not Charity, It Is a Constitutional Obligation to Protect the Environment and Biodiversity” – In a monumental verdict with sweeping implications for both environmental conservation and corporate governance, the Supreme Court of India on December 19, 2025, delivered a judgment reaffirming that the conservation of critically endangered species like the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) is not a matter of discretion, but a constitutional mandate under Articles 21, 48A, and 51A(g). The Court directed the undergrounding of 250 km of high-risk powerlines, banned new solar and wind projects in core habitats, and held that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds must be deployed to support environmental duties, including species protection.

Calling the GIB “the soul of the desert”, the Court declared, “Conservation of endangered species is not to be sacrificed at the altar of development. India’s environmental obligations must march in step with its energy ambitions, not behind them.”

“CSR Obligations Flow from Article 51A(g); Environment Is Not an Optional Expense for Corporates” – Apex Court Links Corporate Law with Constitutional Duties

A key highlight of the judgment is the Court’s interpretation of Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. The bench held that CSR is not merely corporate generosity, but a reflection of constitutional responsibility. The Court ruled, “CSR is not charity. It is an obligation that flows from Article 51A(g) and Section 166(2) of the Companies Act. Corporate entities must integrate environmental consciousness into the core of their social responsibility policies.”

This legal articulation marks the first time that CSR has been expressly linked to species conservation and biodiversity protection, creating a new standard for evaluating CSR activities under Indian law.

GIB Habitat Declared Priority Conservation Zone: All New Wind, Solar Parks Above 2 MW Banned in 14,753 Sq. Km Area

The Court accepted the detailed findings of the Expert Committee and designated 14,013 sq. km in Rajasthan and 740 sq. km in Gujarat as the final 'priority area' for the survival of the Great Indian Bustard. Within this zone, the Court held that no new wind turbines, solar parks exceeding 2 MW, or overhead powerlines above 11 kV will be allowed.

The Court stressed that these zones must be treated as “sacrosanct ecological spaces where development must defer to preservation.”

Noting the increasing mortality of GIBs due to overhead transmission lines, the Court affirmed that the habitat is shrinking rapidly, and industrial activity—however green—cannot come at the cost of irreversible biodiversity loss.

“Underground 250 km of Deadly Powerlines Within Two Years” – Supreme Court Issues Binding Timeline to Save Bustards From Extinction

The Court ordered that 250 km of critical transmission lines identified by the Wildlife Institute of India be undergrounded within two years, calling them an “existential threat to the last viable population of the Great Indian Bustard”.

Rejecting arguments by energy companies, the Court held that mitigation of electrocution risk was non-negotiable, stating, “The protection of the Godawan is a national priority. Technical objections cannot override the fundamental right to life—of both humans and non-human species.”

No Exemptions for Wind or Solar Giants – Prior Allotment of Land Won’t Override Ecological Principles

In a firm response to arguments by corporate entities including JSW and ACME Solar, the Court rejected demands for exemption from restrictions due to prior land allotment or investment. The Court held that “No vested right can override the constitutional obligation to preserve endangered species.”

The Court was categorical that "mitigation is not dependent on the source of generation", thereby applying the same standards to both wind and solar infrastructure.

It added, “Environmental safeguards are not adversaries to development. They are preconditions to it in an ecologically fragile landscape.”

Bird Flight Diverters Not a Proven Solution – Court Orders Pilot Study Before Any Large-Scale Use

The Court declined to mandate the universal installation of Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs), observing that their effectiveness for preventing bustard deaths remains scientifically inconclusive. Accepting the Committee’s reservations, the Court stated, “Despite all investments, BFDs mitigate only one threat. Their efficacy in reducing bustard mortality is far from proven in the Indian context.”

A pilot study was ordered by the Wildlife Institute of India and another independent agency before any large-scale rollout.

No Blanket Relief Sought by Petitioners Granted – But Discriminatory Infrastructure Within Priority Zone Barred

While the Court did not include all areas sought by the petitioners—such as the entire 657 sq. km around Rasla Enclave—it held that the exclusion of Rasla was justified due to dense infrastructure. However, it noted that 20 sq. km around Rasla is already part of the revised area and encouraged the State Government to notify the adjoining community areas as conservation reserves.

Supreme Court Reinstates Ecological Constitutionalism – A Model Judgment for Environmental Governance

This verdict is a bold reaffirmation of India’s environmental jurisprudence where the Constitution, statutory law, and scientific evidence converge to protect one of the planet’s most vulnerable species. The Court invoked Articles 14, 21, 48A, and 51A(g) to extend the ambit of legal protection to not just the environment, but also to the idea that development must respect ecological thresholds.

The Court emphasized, “The Godawan is not merely a bird. It is the soul of the desert. And we are but guests in its abode.”

With this decision, the Supreme Court has not only safeguarded a species but also reaffirmed that sustainable development must be both scientifically and constitutionally sustainable.

Date of Decision: December 19, 2025