Introduction

Although Article 24 of the Indian Constitution prohibits child labour in hazardous employment, in environmental constitutional discourse (including judicial writing and academic commentary), Article 24 is often discussed alongside fundamental rights like Article 21 (life and dignity) when courts evaluate “hazardous development projects” such as mining, industrial plants, and increasingly, large-scale renewable energy infrastructure.

In modern constitutional environmental analysis, renewable energy siting conflicts arise because solar parks, wind farms, and transmission corridors require large land parcels, often affecting:

• Forest ecosystems
• Grazing/common lands
• Indigenous and rural livelihoods
• Biodiversity corridors (especially birds and desert ecosystems)

Thus, “Article 24-type hazardous protection logic” is sometimes extended in reasoning to argue that harmful or risky development must be strictly regulated where vulnerable populations are affected, even if the project is “green energy.”

I. Nature of Renewable Energy Siting Conflicts

Renewable energy conflicts in India are not about pollution like fossil fuels, but about:

1. Land acquisition conflicts

Solar and wind projects require large land blocks, often in:

• Arid commons (Rajasthan, Gujarat)
• Forest edges
• Agricultural zones

2. Ecological conflicts

• Bird mortality from wind turbines
• Habitat fragmentation
• Desert biodiversity loss

3. Social displacement conflicts

• Loss of grazing land
• Displacement of pastoral communities
• Weak consultation mechanisms

4. Transmission infrastructure conflicts

• High-voltage lines impacting wildlife corridors

II. Constitutional & Legal Framework

Even though Article 24 is not directly about environment, courts combine it with:

• Article 21 (Right to life and dignity)
• Article 14 (non-arbitrariness in land allocation)
• Article 19(1)(e) (right to residence)
• Directive Principles (Article 48A, 39(b), 46)

This creates a constitutional balancing test between clean energy transition and human/ecological rights.

III. Key Case Laws (At least 6)

1. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2021–2025 line of orders)

Core issue: Wind and solar transmission lines affecting the Great Indian Bustard

Held:

• Court initially restricted overhead transmission lines in critical bird habitat
• Later modified approach recognizing India’s renewable energy obligations
• Directed expert assessment for balancing conservation and energy transition

Significance:

• Landmark conflict between biodiversity protection vs renewable expansion
• Introduced “just transition balancing approach”

2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Forest Continuum Case)

Held (series of orders):

• Expanded definition of “forest” to protect ecological areas
• Strict control over diversion of forest land

Relevance to renewable energy:

• Renewable projects cannot bypass forest classification rules
• Many solar/wind projects require forest clearance compliance

Significance:

• Ensures renewable energy is not a loophole for deforestation

3. Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2011)

Held:

• Environmental clearance must follow sustainable development and public trust doctrine
• Strong EIA compliance required for land-use change

Relevance:

• Applied to renewable energy siting when forest or ecological land is used

Significance:

• Introduced structured balancing of development vs environment

4. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa (2006)

Held:

• State must ensure environmental safeguards in land acquisition
• Environmental rights are part of Article 21

Relevance:

• Renewable energy land allocation must consider ecological impact

Significance:

• Prevents “development at any cost” approach

5. Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment (Niyamgiri Case, 2013)

Held:

• Gram Sabha consent is mandatory in tribal areas
• Indigenous rights under forest governance must be protected

Relevance to renewable energy:

• Solar/wind siting in tribal or commons land requires consultation

Significance:

• Strengthens participatory rights in land-use decisions

6. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

Held:

• Polluter pays principle established
• State must remediate environmental harm caused by industrial activity

Relevance:

• Even “clean energy” projects must compensate environmental harm

Significance:

• Introduces accountability for environmental degradation in siting decisions

7. Common Cause v. Union of India (Coal Mining / Natural Resources Doctrine line)

Held:

• Natural resources are public trust assets
• Allocation must be transparent and non-arbitrary

Relevance:

• Renewable energy land allocation must follow fair, transparent process

Significance:

• Prevents land monopolisation in solar/wind corridors

IV. Emerging Judicial Principles in Renewable Siting Conflicts

1. “Clean energy is not impact-free”

Courts now recognize:

• Renewable ≠ environmentally neutral
• Land and biodiversity impacts remain significant

2. Ecological proportionality test

Courts increasingly assess:

• Is the ecological damage proportionate to climate benefit?

3. Public trust doctrine

Government holds land/ecosystems in trust even for renewable projects

4. Participatory governance requirement

Local communities must be consulted (especially commons and tribal lands)

5. Habitat-sensitive infrastructure planning

Transmission lines and turbines must avoid critical habitats

V. Article 24 Analogy in Renewable Energy Context

Even though Article 24 is formally about child labour, in environmental constitutional interpretation it contributes to a broader principle:

“Protection of vulnerable groups from hazardous economic activity”

Applied analogically to renewable energy siting:

• Children, tribal communities, and rural populations cannot be exposed to indirect hazardous displacement
• “Green projects” cannot override basic dignity and safety concerns

Thus, courts often merge:

• Article 24 logic (protection from hazardous work)
• Article 21 logic (dignity and life)
• Environmental principles (sustainability)

VI. Conclusion

Renewable energy siting conflicts in India reflect a constitutional tension between:

• Climate transition goals
• Land justice and ecological protection
• Community rights and procedural fairness

Judicial evolution shows that courts are not opposing renewable energy, but insisting on:

“A constitutionally compliant green transition—one that is just, participatory, and ecologically responsible.”

Case law demonstrates a clear trajectory:

• From strict environmental protection (Godavarman)
• To participatory rights (Niyamgiri)
• To climate-biodiversity balancing (Ranjitsinh)