‘Will not be deterred from going out of way to protect environment,’ SC on tree felling in Kancha Gachibowli

The apex court added that not a single tree is to be felled up in the area until the next hearing on May 15. The SC also urged the wildlife warden of Telangana to ensure that wildlife in the area is protected.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it is deeply concerned for the protection of the environment and ecology, and it will not be deterred from going out of the way to protect it.

The court slammed the Telangana government while hearing a suo motu case concerning large-scale tree felling in the Kancha Gachibowli area near Hyderabad.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih warned that if officials were to continue to disregard laws for the protection of the environment, then they might build themselves a prison to serve time in.

The court noted that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) has examined the spot and submitted its report, and the committee has made a disturbing finding.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing the state government, contended that the report of the CEC is voluminous and the state would need some time to respond to it.

The bench granted four weeks to the state to file its reply to the report and directed the wildlife warden of Telangana to indicate what immediate steps are required to be undertaken to protect the wildlife which has been affected on account of the deforestation in the 100 acres.

The bench said it would not observe anything on restoration and it will keep it open, as if the state were to change its stance in the matter then the court must have some scope for the temporary arrangement of six months (in prison) for state officers.

“If you oppose restoration then a temporary prison,” the bench told Singhvi, who clarified that the state is taking a constructive approach and the state wants both employment and development without any harm to the environment.

Amicus curiae senior advocate K Parameshwar contended before the bench that the government had “adopted a self-certification mode”.

“We have been propagating sustainable development from 2017, our first concern is restoration of status quo, in the meantime, not a single tree will be felled,” the bench said.

The amicus curiae requested the bench to direct the chief secretary to file an affidavit.

The apex court told the state’s counsel that instead of justifying it, the government should come up with a restoration plan. The court fixed the matter for further hearing on May 15.

During the hearing, the bench, citing Article 142 of the Constitution, said, “For the protection of environment and ecology, we will go out of the way…”

The bench asked how so many trees were felled without permission from the competent authority, and said that a temporary prison would be constructed on the banks of the lake (in the area), for the concerned officers of the state.

The bench was informed that everything had been stopped and due permissions were obtained for most of the tree cutting, barring a small number.

On the aspect of tree felling, the bench asked what was the tearing urgency to do it in a three-day holiday? Bulldozers were brought in during these holidays only.

The bench said the court is concerned with the damage done to the environment and pointed out that even private forests require the court's permission to fell trees. A counsel pointed out that the state, in its affidavit, says that they are developing an eco-friendly IT park after demolishing the forest.

The bench told Singhvi, “Immediately see how those wild animals can be protected… let your wildlife warden personally supervise that.”

The court was informed that 2,300 acres is the whole area, and the court in this matter is concerned about 400 acres, and the Hyderabad University campus is 1,900 acres.

The bench also recalled that the court had once halted a housing project to protect Sukhna Lake, which is in Chandigarh.

Singhvi insisted that due permissions were in place.

The court, criticising the apparent absence of due process, told Singhvi that if you wanted to do something, you should have taken the required permissions.

The state government counsel contended that in 2024, the process had begun and it was being misrepresented as a recent act.

“It’s being shown as if it had just started,” the counsel said.

Singhvi submitted that the project in question was valued at ₹50,000 crore and aimed to generate one lakh jobs.

However, Justice Gavai made it clear that the court is first concerned with the restoration of the area, and not concerned with project value or employment figures.

“We are concerned with the presence of bulldozers and the erasure of a forest valued at Rs 100 crore,” the bench said.

Singhvi said the state will file an affidavit, where it will be outlining its plan of action for environmental restoration. The amicus curiae expressed concern regarding the exploitation of the area and pointed out that the concern with the mortgage is that the entire land is being given to a private party.

The bench said it didn’t care about the mortgage or commercial deals and it is only bothered about the environment and how the government will restore it.

“Let them satisfy how they’ll overcome the order,” the court said.

The court had earlier taken up suo motu the issue following reports of widespread environmental damage, questioned the action of the state government and stressed immediate restoration measures.

On April 3, the apex court directed no activity of any sort, except for the protection of trees, should be undertaken by the Telangana government on the land parcel next to the University of Hyderabad, and asked the state to explain the “compelling urgency” for clearing a large tree cover.

Students of the University of Hyderabad raised a banner of protests against the state government's plans to develop the 400-acre land parcel bordering the varsity.