“60,000 Trees to be Cut?”: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu seeks Justification for Massive Felling Drive

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court questioned the growing trend of permitting indiscriminate tree felling for infrastructure projects, particularly in ecologically sensitive zones. While examining a batch of applications seeking approval for cutting thousands of trees, the Court noted serious concerns regarding the apparent lack of due diligence in site selection and emphasised that development cannot be pursued at the cost of established green cover. 

The controversy unfolded during hearings on multiple applications seeking permission to cut trees for infrastructure works, including power substations and railway projects. The Punjab State Transmission Corporation sought approval to fell a significant number of trees for upgrading substations, prompting the Court to question why alternative, less ecologically sensitive land was not considered. Simultaneously, the Punjab Forest Corporation sought clearance to cut nearly 60,000 trees, raising concerns about the sheer scale of environmental impact.

Other agencies, including Rail Vikas Nigam Limited and local development authorities, also approached the Court for tree felling linked to projects such as railway lines, highways, and urban expansion, leading to a broader judicial examination of how such approvals are being granted.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, adopted a stern tone, expressing dissatisfaction with the apparent disregard for green cover. The Court observed, “Cut all the trees… chop off every tree in Punjab,” emphasising the arbitrary nature of such requests. It further questioned the absence of detailed assessments, noting that authorities must justify the necessity of felling by providing data on species, age, and ecological significance.

The Court emphasised that financial considerations cannot override environmental responsibility and pressed agencies to explore alternatives before resorting to tree cutting. While granting limited permissions in select cases subject to compliance with environmental safeguards, several applications were kept pending for want of adequate material, with directions to ensure compensatory afforestation and transparency in decision-making.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.