Corporate Social Responsibility Must Include Environmental Responsibility, Says Supreme Court In Great Indian Bustard Case

In a significant pronouncement expanding the scope of corporate accountability, the Supreme Court has held that Corporate Social Responsibility cannot be divorced from Corporate Environmental Responsibility, observing that companies cannot claim to be socially responsible while disregarding the protection of wildlife and fragile ecosystems affected by their operations.

Delivering a detailed judgment in the long-running litigation concerning the conservation of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard, the Court underlined that corporations, as legal persons and key organs of society, share the constitutional duty under Article 51A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment and to show compassion for living creatures.

A Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the statutory CSR framework under the Companies Act, 2013 reflects a shift from voluntary charity to enforceable obligation and that environmental protection lies at the heart of this mandate. The Court stressed that CSR funds are not acts of philanthropy but instruments to discharge constitutional and fiduciary duties, particularly where corporate activities threaten endangered species and their habitats.

CSR includes duty to protect endangered species

The Court traced the evolution of CSR law in India, noting that Section 135 of the Companies Act institutionalised the idea that corporate profits are not solely private entitlements but are partly owed to society. Referring to Section 166(2), the Court emphasised 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 Bench observed that Schedule VII of the Companies Act explicitly treats environmental sustainability, ecological balance, and protection of flora and fauna as components of social responsibility, thereby blurring the artificial divide between social welfare and environmental protection.

In strong terms, the Court held that where corporate activity contributes to habitat degradation or poses a risk to endangered species, the obligation to fund conservation flows from the Polluter Pays principle and the Species Best Interest standard recognised in earlier judgments.

"Therefore, the corporate definition of "Social Responsibility" must inherently include "Environmental Responsibility." Companies cannot assert to be socially responsible while ignoring equal claims of the environment and other beings of the ecosystem. The Constitution of India, under Article 51A(g), imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures."

A corporation, as a legal person and a key organ of society, shares this fundamental duty. CSR funds are the tangible expression of this duty. Consequently, allocating funds for the protection of environment is not a voluntary act of charity but a fulfilment of a constitutional obligation.

The obligation to protect endangered species is paramount. CSR funds must, therefore, be directed towards ex-situ and in-situ conservation efforts to prevent extinction.

The non-renewable power generators operating in the priority as well as non-priority areas in Rajasthan and Gujarat must always remember that they share the environment with the Godawan, the Great Indian Bustard and must undertake their activities as if they are guests in its abode."

Background of the litigation

The case arose from a writ petition filed in 2019 by environmentalist M.K. Ranjitsinh seeking urgent measures to prevent the extinction of the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican, whose populations have declined sharply due to habitat loss and collisions with overhead power lines.

In April 2021, the Supreme Court had imposed a sweeping restriction on overhead transmission lines across nearly 99,000 sq km in Rajasthan and Gujarat. That order was later modified in March 2024 after the Union Government flagged serious implications for India's renewable energy transition. The Court then constituted a high-level Expert Committee to recommend scientifically grounded and balanced measures.

Revised priority areas approved

Accepting the Committee's recommendations, the Court approved revised priority conservation areas of 14,013 sq km in Rajasthan and 740 sq km in Gujarat, rationalising earlier demarcations to focus protection on the last remaining strongholds of the species.

The Court declined the petitioners' request to further expand the Rajasthan priority area by adding 657 sq km in the Rasla–Degrai Oran region, holding that the Expert Committee had taken a holistic view based on field studies and stakeholder consultations.

Restrictions on renewable energy and power infrastructure

The Court approved strict restrictions within the revised priority areas, directing that no new wind turbines and no new solar parks or solar plants exceeding 2 MW capacity shall be permitted. Expansion of existing solar parks was also barred.

It further directed that no new overhead power lines, except those of 11 kV and below, shall be allowed in these areas, except through dedicated power corridors identified by the Expert Committee. Dedicated corridors were approved in both Rajasthan and Gujarat to consolidate transmission infrastructure and minimise collision risks.

Undergrounding and rerouting of power lines

The Bench accepted the Committee's recommendation for targeted undergrounding and rerouting of power lines rather than a blanket ban. It directed the immediate undergrounding of 80 km of 33 kV lines in Rajasthan and approved rerouting or mitigation of several 66 kV and above lines passing through critical habitats.

The Court also directed that around 250 km of critical power lines identified by the Wildlife Institute of India in Rajasthan must be undergrounded within two years, placing oversight responsibility on the Inspector General, Wildlife Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

Bird diverters to await scientific validation

While declining to mandate Bird Flight Diverters across all power lines, the Court acknowledged concerns regarding their effectiveness and maintenance. It directed that further scientific studies and pilot projects be undertaken by the Wildlife Institute of India and at least one independent agency before any final policy decision is taken on their deployment.

The judgment places significant emphasis on in-situ conservation measures, including grassland restoration, predator management, community engagement, monitoring of bustard populations, and scaling up of Project Great Indian Bustard through CAMPA funding.

Long-term studies on the impact of climate change on the species were also directed to be continued, reinforcing the Court's view that conservation and climate mitigation must proceed together rather than in opposition.

Disposing of the writ petitions and civil appeal, the Court made it clear that the survival of the Great Indian Bustard is non-negotiable, and that corporate actors benefiting from natural landscapes must shoulder a proportionate share of responsibility for conserving them.

Case : MK Ranjitsinh & Others v Union of India

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1233

Click here to read the judgment