"Saving trees is a public interest project," Delhi HC pushes back on NHAI’s highway expansion plans

The Delhi High Court on Friday (January 18, 2025) emphasized the importance of preserving trees, stating that saving them is "also a project in public interest." The court raised concerns about the necessity of cutting down trees for the widening of a stretch of National Highway-8 (NH-8), which connects South Delhi to the airport.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over the case, remarked, “Why can’t you make an underpass at the place so that trees can be saved? Why can’t we treat trees as public interest rather than just cut them for road expansion? These are not dispensable, please understand.” The comments came during the hearing of a petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking permission to fell and transplant trees as part of the project.

The NHAI had argued that the highway expansion was necessary to alleviate traffic congestion on an essential route used by commuters traveling between Delhi and its neighboring city, Gurgaon, as well as to facilitate smoother access to the airport. However, the Court questioned whether cutting down trees was truly justified, suggesting alternative solutions such as an underpass to save the trees while still improving road access.

While acknowledging the persistent traffic issues at the Dhaula Kuan stretch, which is one of the busiest sections of NH-8, the Court underlined that "alternatives must be explored" before resorting to tree felling.

The NHAI had received prior clearance from the city’s forest department to fell or transplant 78 trees as part of the road widening initiative. It had requested the court's approval to proceed after it had earlier instructed a review of all tree-felling permissions granted for such projects. In its plea, NHAI stated that the stretch at Subroto Park near the Air Force Station has become severely congested, leading to long delays for commuters.

Despite the NHAI’s justification, the Court expressed its reservations, opting to schedule a further hearing for a more detailed review of the matter. It noted that “it was not convinced that the trees must be felled,” signaling the potential for further legal scrutiny of the road expansion plans.