New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday underscored the pivotal role of centralized monitoring in the success of wildlife conservation initiatives, citing Project Tiger as a prime example. The apex court made this observation while hearing a case concerning the urgent protection of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB), a critically endangered bird species primarily found in Rajasthan and Gujarat, whose population is rapidly declining due to human-induced threats, particularly collisions with overhead power transmission lines. The bench, comprising Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, reserved its verdict in the matter while emphasizing the importance of structured oversight in ensuring effective conservation outcomes.

The matter before the court arises from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by retired IAS officer M K Ranjitsinh and other conservationists, who contended that the GIB is on the brink of extinction and that prior directives issued by the Supreme Court in 2021 for the bird’s protection had not been fully implemented. The petitioners highlighted the serious threat posed to GIBs by overhead electrical cables, including those linked to solar power projects. Due to the bird’s lateral vision, with eyes positioned on the sides of its head, GIBs are unable to effectively maneuver away from live wires during flight, making them particularly vulnerable to electrocution and collisions.

During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, emphasized the government’s duty to promote wildlife conservation. She pointed to India’s track record in protecting species that were previously on the verge of extinction, noting that structured, long-term initiatives had helped several species recover in population and range. Bhati referred specifically to Project Tiger, launched in 1973 to safeguard tiger populations, as an example of a successful conservation program driven by centralized monitoring and oversight. The court observed that one of the critical factors behind Project Tiger’s success was the establishment of a centralized authority, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), which ensured regular monitoring, data collection, and enforcement of conservation measures across tiger reserves in the country.

Drawing a parallel to the GIB, the bench inquired about the current institutional mechanism for overseeing the conservation of the species. ASG Bhati acknowledged that, unlike Project Tiger, no dedicated authority akin to the NTCA exists for the Great Indian Bustard, although the government had initiated a program known as Project GIB to focus on the conservation of the remaining population. She provided updated information, stating that there were currently 68 GIB chicks in captivity, and that a court-appointed expert committee had completed its mandated studies in both Rajasthan and Gujarat, submitting comprehensive reports on habitat suitability and threats to the species.

The Supreme Court referred to its previous verdict in March 2024, which had constituted an expert committee tasked with recommending areas where power transmission lines could be laid underground to minimize the risk to the GIB. The committee was also asked to identify priority and potential habitats in Rajasthan and Gujarat for immediate protection. According to the 2024 verdict, the total priority area across both states was 13,663 square kilometers, while the potential area extended to 80,680 square kilometers. In Rajasthan alone, 13,163 square kilometers were categorized as priority areas, with 78,580 square kilometers designated as potential areas and an additional 5,977 square kilometers marked as important. In Gujarat, 500 square kilometers were identified as priority areas, 2,100 square kilometers as potential areas, and 677 square kilometers as additionally important areas for conservation efforts.

The apex court reserved its verdict while allowing the parties to file written submissions within a week, highlighting the urgent need to formalize a centralized monitoring authority for the Great Indian Bustard. The court noted that the bird’s critically endangered status necessitates immediate intervention and robust oversight mechanisms similar to those established for tiger conservation under Project Tiger.

Historically, Project Tiger has been hailed as one of India’s most successful wildlife conservation initiatives. The program, launched in 1973, was designed to protect the dwindling tiger population through habitat preservation, anti-poaching measures, and scientific monitoring. The establishment of the NTCA provided a centralized framework for overseeing the implementation of the program across multiple states, ensuring accountability, coordination, and the systematic collection of population and ecological data. This model has been widely recognized as a template for other species-specific conservation efforts, demonstrating that centralized monitoring is a critical determinant of long-term conservation success.

The plight of the Great Indian Bustard, by contrast, remains dire. Once widespread across the Indian subcontinent, GIB populations have suffered catastrophic declines due to habitat loss, hunting, and, most significantly, collisions with overhead power transmission lines. The expansion of renewable energy infrastructure, particularly solar power projects, has inadvertently increased these risks, as high-voltage transmission lines are often routed through or near GIB habitats. Conservationists have repeatedly emphasized that unless urgent measures are taken, the species faces imminent extinction in the wild.

The Supreme Court has previously directed both the Gujarat and Rajasthan governments to replace overhead electrical cables with underground lines wherever feasible. Additionally, bird diverters were mandated to be installed in priority areas to reduce the risk of collision. However, the petitioners in the current PIL argued that compliance with these directives has been inconsistent, prompting the apex court to examine the issue once again.

The court’s observations during Wednesday’s hearing highlighted several key points. First, it reiterated that centralized oversight and monitoring mechanisms are crucial to the success of species-specific conservation projects. Second, it emphasized the need for a dedicated authority for the GIB, analogous to the NTCA for tigers, which would coordinate conservation efforts, monitor population trends, and enforce protective measures across states. Third, the bench recognized the scientific input of the expert committee and underscored the importance of translating these recommendations into actionable government policies, particularly in areas where GIBs are most at risk from human infrastructure.

In her submissions, ASG Bhati stressed that the government is aware of the threats to the GIB and has already initiated captive breeding programs and habitat protection measures. She cited the 68 GIB chicks in captivity as evidence of ongoing conservation efforts, while acknowledging that a dedicated monitoring authority would significantly enhance the effectiveness of these initiatives. The court’s inquiry into institutional mechanisms for GIB conservation reflected a growing recognition that fragmented oversight and lack of accountability remain major challenges in wildlife protection efforts in India.

The Supreme Court’s engagement with the GIB conservation issue forms part of a broader trend in environmental jurisprudence, where courts have increasingly played an active role in ensuring the enforcement of wildlife protection laws. Through its interventions, the apex court has not only highlighted the legal obligations of state and central governments but has also emphasized the importance of scientific evidence, habitat prioritization, and risk mitigationin the formulation of conservation policies.

As the court awaits final submissions from the parties, conservationists hope that the verdict will lead to establishment of a central authority for the Great Indian Bustard, along with clear directives for underground cabling in critical habitats, systematic monitoring of the wild population, and expansion of captive breeding programs. Such measures, experts argue, are essential to prevent the extinction of this iconic bird and to provide a model for the conservation of other critically endangered species in India.

The Supreme Court’s repeated references to Project Tiger underscore the importance of institutionalized, centralized monitoring in wildlife protection. By drawing lessons from tiger conservation, the court has signaled that long-term, sustained, and well-coordinated intervention is indispensable for saving species like the Great Indian Bustard from extinction. The coming verdict is expected to have significant implications not only for GIB conservation but also for broader environmental governance, infrastructure planning, and wildlife management policies in India.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s observations reflect a critical insight: while individual conservation measures such as captive breeding, habitat restoration, and mitigation of specific threats are important, the presence of a centralized, authoritative body to oversee implementation, monitor compliance, and coordinate action across states is often the key determinant of success. Project Tiger demonstrates the effectiveness of this model, and experts hope that the same approach can now be applied to safeguard the Great Indian Bustard, ensuring that India does not lose yet another species to human-induced threats.

The verdict, once pronounced, will likely shape the future of GIB conservation in India, guiding government policies, informing infrastructure planning, and providing a framework for systematic protection of critically endangered species for decades to come.

---