Supreme Court of India order on transmission measures to protect endangered birds

5.   Further this Court in the case of  Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund – India Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 234 while considering the protection and conservation of endangered species has observed as hereunder:

“45. We may point out that there has been wide ranging discussions and deliberations on the international platforms and conferences for rebuilding of certain principles laid down in the earlier conventions on the Principles of Sustainable Development. The United Nations Commission on Environment and Development defined the “sustainable development” as follows:

“Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present  without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (World Commission on Economic Development [WCED], 1987 : 43) 

46. Sustainable development, it has been argued by various  eminent  environmentalists, clearly postulates an anthropocentric bias, least concerned with the rights of other species which live on this earth. Anthropocentrism is always human interest focused thinking that nonhuman  has only instrumental value to humans, in other words, humans take precedence and human responsibilities to non­human are based on benefits to humans. Ecocentrism is nature-centred, where humans are part of nature and non­humans have intrinsic value. In other words, human interest does not take automatic precedence and humans have obligations to non­humans independently of human interest. Ecocentrism is, therefore, life­centred, nature-centred where nature includes both humans and non­humans.”

“48. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects not only the human rights but also casts an obligation on human beings to protect and preserve a species becoming extinct, conservation and protection of environment is an inseparable part of right to life. In M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388] , this Court enunciated the doctrine of “public trust”, the thrust of that theory is that certain common properties such as rivers, seashores, forests and the air are held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public. The resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance  to  the people  as  a  whole,  that  it would be totally unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The State, as a custodian of the natural resources, has a duty to maintain them not merely for the benefit of the public, but for the best interest of flora and fauna, wildlife and so on. The doctrine of “public trust” has to be addressed in that perspective. 

49. We, as human beings, have a duty to prevent the species from going extinct and have to advocate for an effective species protection regimes. NWAP 2002­2016 and the Centrally sponsored scheme, 2009 indicate that there are many animal species which are close enough to extinction and some of the other species have already disappeared from this earth. No species can survive on the brink of extinction indefinitely and that the continued existence of any species depends upon various factors like human­animal conflict, epidemics, forest fire and other natural calamities, etc.” 

The State as well as the Central Government therefore, have a duty cast to preserve the endangered species and as such the expenses incurred will have to be provided by them either under the schemes available or by earmarking the same in such manner.   Needless to mention that in the instant case the preservation is by undergrounding the powerlines and in that context if cost is incurred, it would also be permissible to pass on a portion of such expenses to the ultimate consumer subject to approval of the Competent Regulatory Authority.