The Great Indian Bustard’s Last Stand: How India’s Supreme Court Forged a New Path for Conservation and Clean Energy 

The Great Indian Bustard’s Last Stand: How India’s Supreme Court Forged a New Path for Conservation and Clean Energy 

In the vast, arid grasslands of Rajasthan and Gujarat, a silent crisis has been unfolding—one that pits India’s ambitious renewable energy future against the survival of one of the world’s most critically endangered birds, the Great Indian Bustard (GIB). With fewer than 150 individuals left in the wild, each death pushes the species closer to extinction. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has stepped in, not with a simple mandate, but with a nuanced, evidence-based blueprint aimed at saving the bird without derailing the nation’s clean energy transition. This is the story of that delicate balancing act, and what it reveals about the future of conservation in a developing economy. 

The Collision Course: How Power Lines Became Death Traps 

The Great Indian Bustard, a majestic, ostrich-like bird that once roamed across the Indian subcontinent, is now confined to fragmented pockets in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Its decline is a tragic tale of habitat loss, hunting, and predation. But in recent decades, a new, insidious threat emerged: overhead power lines. 

These transmission lines, particularly those evacuating power from the massive solar and wind farms in the Thar Desert and Kutch, are nearly invisible to the bustard. The bird’s poor frontal vision and heavy, low-flight pattern make it exceptionally vulnerable to collisions. Experts estimate that 5-10% of the remaining population dies this way each year—a devastating toll for a species on the brink. A single power line can fragment its habitat, cutting off breeding grounds from foraging areas. 

This crisis reached the Supreme Court in 2021 through a petition highlighting the urgent need for intervention. The Court’s initial response was sweeping: a near-total ban on new overhead power lines across a massive 99,000 sq km area of potential habitat. While well-intentioned, this order soon revealed its own set of problems. 

The 2024 Pivot: From Blanket Ban to Strategic Safeguard 

The 2021 blanket ban became a point of contention. The Ministry of Power, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), and even the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) raised red flags. They argued that burying all high-voltage lines was technically challenging, exorbitantly expensive (costing potentially tens of thousands of crores of rupees), and would severely hamper India’s renewable energy targets—a cornerstone of its climate commitments. 

Faced with this complex trade-off, the Supreme Court demonstrated judicial pragmatism. In March 2024, it modified its order, withdrawing the blanket ban. Instead, it constituted an expert committee comprising wildlife biologists, conservationists, and power sector engineers. Their task was not to choose between conservation and clean energy, but to find a path that served both. 

The Court’s final 2025 judgment, based on this committee’s recommendations, is a masterclass in targeted, science-based policy. It moves away from one-size-fits-all solutions to a mosaic of interventions. 

The Three-Pillared Strategy: A Blueprint for Coexistence 

The Supreme Court’s directive rests on three core pillars, each designed to maximize protection while minimizing disruption. 

1. Redrawing and Fortifying Conservation ZonesThe Court didn’t just accept existing habitat maps; it refined them. It expanded “Priority Conservation Areas” in Rajasthan (to 14,013 sq km) and Gujarat (to 740 sq km), focusing on core breeding and foraging sites like the Desert National Park, Pokhran Field Firing Range, and key grassland corridors. This zoning is critical—it tells uswhere to concentrate our most stringent protections. By clearly demarcating these zones, the Court provides certainty for both conservationists and project developers. 
2. Voltage-Based Mitigation and Dedicated CorridorsThis is the technical heart of the solution. The Court mandated:

• Immediate Undergrounding: Mandatory burial of all 33 kV and 66 kV power lines within the newly defined priority areas. These lower-voltage lines, often distribution lines, are more feasible and cost-effective to underground and are particularly dense in critical habitats. 

• Strategic Rerouting: For higher-voltage transmission lines (which are more complex and costly to bury), the Court ordered the creation of dedicated powerline corridors—5 km wide corridors in Rajasthan placed at least 5 km south of the Desert National Park. These act as “avian highways” for power, consolidating multiple lines into a single, known zone to drastically reduce the spatial footprint of the collision threat. 

• Project Restrictions: A moratorium on new wind turbines and large solar parks (>2 MW) within priority areas, effectively steering new renewable projects away from the GIB’s most sensitive core habitats. 

3. Beyond Power Lines: Holistic In-Situ ConservationRecognizing that power lines are just one threat, the Court endorsed a suite of habitat management actions:

• Grassland Restoration: Directing the revival of the GIB’s fast-degrading native grassland ecosystems, which are often wrongly classified as “wasteland.” 

• Predator & Conflict Management: Plans to control populations of free-ranging dogs and monitor other predators that raid GIB nests. 

• Community Engagement: Acknowledging that long-term survival is impossible without the support of local pastoral and agricultural communities. 

The Gujarat “Jump-Start”: A Bold Experiment in Wild Breeding 

One of the most innovative directives is for Gujarat. The Court backed a “jump-start” breeding program. This involves carefully transferring fertile eggs from the more stable Rajasthan population to Gujarat, where they will be incubated by wild females (replacing their infertile eggs). This technique, combined with GPS tagging for monitoring, aims to boost Gujarat’s tiny, isolated population without the downsides of prolonged captive breeding, helping preserve the bird’s wild instincts and behaviors. 

The Unanswered Question: A Pause on Bird Diverters 

In a notable move, the Court refrained from mandating the widespread installation of “bird flight diverters” (spiral devices hung on wires to increase visibility). Instead, it called for a scientific study on their actual effectiveness for the GIB. This pause is significant—it shows a shift from symbolic action to evidence-based conservation, ensuring that time and resources are spent on what truly works. 

The Bigger Picture: A Model for 21st-Century Conservation 

The Great Indian Bustard judgment is more than a wildlife conservation order. It is a precedent for how modern economies can navigate the complex intersection of ecological preservation and developmental imperatives. 

It rejects false choices. The Court explicitly refused to frame this as “birds vs. jobs” or “conservation vs. climate action.” It acknowledged that both a livable planet (via renewable energy) and biodiversity are non-negotiable pillars of a sustainable future. 

It embraces adaptive governance. By moving from a rigid ban to a committee-driven, technical solution, the Court modeled adaptive management—learning, course-correcting, and incorporating expertise from multiple domains. 

It places the burden on infrastructure planning. The judgment essentially states that in the 21st century, linear infrastructure—power lines, roads, railways—must be designed with ecology in mind from the outset. It’s a move from mitigation to avoidance and strategic planning. The concept of “dedicated corridors” could become a model for other projects in sensitive landscapes. 

The Road Ahead: Implementation is Key 

The judgment provides a brilliant framework, but its success hinges entirely on execution. State forest departments, power grid corporations (like POWERGRID), and renewable energy companies must now collaborate with unprecedented coordination. Timelines for undergrounding (before 2028) are tight. Monitoring the GIB’s population response through rigorous scientific study will be crucial. 

The Great Indian Bustard stands at a crossroads. The Supreme Court has built a bridge between its survival and India’s progress. Crossing that bridge will require persistent will, adequate funding, and a shared commitment to the idea that true development does not leave our most vulnerable species—or our climate—behind. This isn’t just about saving a bird; it’s about defining what kind of growth a nation chooses to pursue.