Buried forest, missing law

Large-scale environmental destruction must be criminalised. India cannot afford to defer a law for ecocide.

In April, over a weekend, the Telangana government felled hundreds of trees in the eco-sensitive zone of Hyderabad’s Kancha Gachibowli forest. Within days, 100 acres (of a total 400) of the urban forest were destroyed, disrupting an entire ecosystem and wildlife, sparking public anger across the country. The Supreme Court of India came down heavily on the government for the move.

The forest was allegedly cleared for the development of IT parks. The destruction appears to have occurred without any environmental clearance under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, or approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Amendment Act of 2023, or any public consultation. Officials claimed the land was “government property” and therefore not a “notified forest.” This justification, however, contradicts the settled law.

In the landmark case of T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court held that the term “forest” must be interpreted widely, beyond its legal definition. Any land with forest-like characteristics, irrespective of ownership or official designation, is to be treated as forest land for legal protection.

The Court directed that no such land could be cleared or diverted without prior approval from the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Gachibowli forest meets the ecological criteria of a forest, and satellite imagery and local accounts suggest it does; its clearance without mandatory approvals constitutes a clear legal violation.

Not only were there violations under the present laws in the country, but what happened here was a grave environmental crime, an “ecocide”. The Stop Ecocide Foundation defines ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

In July, while hearing the suo motu case In Re: Kancha Gachibowli Forest, State of Telangana, the Chief Justice of India, B R Gavai, stated that he advocates sustainable development, but that doesn’t mean bulldozers are employed to clear a jungle overnight. In the latest hearing on the case last month, the Telangana government informed the Court about plans for a better, sustainable proposal. The Court, in its order, stated that developmental activities should be accompanied by mitigating and compensatory measures in the interest of the environment and wildlife.

Though multiple Supreme Court decisions have underlined environmental protection, India’s forest and biodiversity laws, while comprehensive, are largely procedural and clearance-based. Violations are often treated as administrative defaults rather than serious environmental harm.

Despite constitutional commitments under Article 48A (State’s duty to protect the environment, forest and wildlife) and Article 51A(g) (citizens’ duty to protect nature), India has no specific legal concept of ecocide, where destruction of ecosystems is considered a serious offence. Under the current law, unauthorised deforestation attracts just fines or minor penalties. There is no standalone offence for irreversible ecological damage, even if it leads to habitat loss, pollution, or climate risk. Criminal prosecution is rare and limited to specific wildlife or pollution violations. Non-notified forests like the one in Gachibowli are especially vulnerable, as they often fall through regulatory cracks.

Deterrence before offence

An ecocide law would bridge this gap by recognising mass environmental destruction as a criminal offence, irrespective of the procedural lapses. It would establish personal criminal liability for corporate executives, contractors, and public officials involved, a duty of care towards the environment, restorative obligations including ecological rehabilitation, and compensation and preventive deterrence, rather than post-facto damage control.

Globally, countries like France and Belgium have begun to define ecocide in domestic law. International legal experts have proposed its inclusion as a core crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Recently, Scotland proposed an Ecocide Bill aiming to criminalise severe and irreversible environmental harm. It recommends penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for individuals and unlimited fines for organisations. The bill targets corporate executives and officials while protecting uninformed employees and encouraging organisational precautions.

The Gachibowli forest clearance is not an isolated event; it echoes across the country, from Hasdeo to Aarey, where forests are routinely sacrificed for infrastructure and real estate.

India has strong environmental jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has time and again tried to prevent nature’s destruction by placing stringent restrictions and fines on violators. However, India lacks the statutory architecture to treat environmental destruction as a crime against nature and society. Recognising ecocide in Indian law would not merely punish wrongdoers but would reflect the commitment to ecological justice.

(The writer is an advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.