SC seeks compensatory afforestation compliance in Delhi

New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of project proponents, including government agencies and private entities, in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh for allegedly flouting compensatory afforestation norms over tree felling for infrastructure projects.
The court threatened contempt action if the proponents failed to comply with norms within three months. Thirty-five proponents were identified in all, with Delhi accounting for 19 of them.
A bench headed by justice AS Oka said, “There can be no cutting of trees till there is planting of additional trees”, and directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to set up a dashboard to monitor its decisions since 2011 on tree felling orders and check if the riders or compensatory work was carried out.
The CEC submitted two reports — filed in two-batch matters of the MC Mehta case about setting up the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to protect the Taj Mahal from pollution — identifying 35 project proponents who cut trees but did not provide any detail on the compensatory afforestation undertaken.
CEC is the expert body assisting the court on environment issues.
Of the 35, 19 proponents were from Delhi, who carried out projects in multiple areas, including ridge areas, where court orders from 2016 to 2023 were not complied with. The list of defaulters included the defence ministry, finance ministry, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Public Works Department (PWD), Delhi Police, National Capital Region Transport Corporation, NBCC, erstwhile South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Power Grid Corporation, Jawaharlal Nehru University and South Asian University (Maidan Garhi).
The bench, also comprising justice Augustine George Masih, permitted CEC to send notices to these project proponents, calling upon them to submit data of compliance within three months. The court said the dashboard, in the form of a customised management information system, can be accessed by project proponents through unique IDs to submit data of compliance by uploading information along with pictures to ensure compliance.
Posting the matter for further consideration on October 25, the bench said, “We make it clear that if we are satisfied that the applicant/project proponent has failed to upload data, contempt of court action shall be taken against the applicants.”
The court passed a similar order for the remaining defaulting project proponents falling in TTZ.
Senior advocate ADN Rao, appearing for CEC, submitted a separate report highlighting 16 projects where proof of compulsory afforestation under court orders was yet to be implemented. This included a 2011 decision of the court allowing the construction of the Taj Expressway, a 2015 order for the construction of Agra Lucknow Expressway and Bharatpur-Dholpur Road, widening of Mathura-Vrindavan and Mathura-Bareilly roads, and expansion of railway tracks in Mathura, among others.
The court directed CEC to carry out a similar exercise in Delhi and posted the UP matter for October 14.
The UP government sought permission for the felling of trees to provide a civil terminal at the Agra airport, which is currently serviced by the military. The court directed CEC to consider the application and suggest the fewest number of trees that needed to be cut for approval of the project.
In the recent past, the court passed several directions to states and CEC on protecting trees, citing the Constitution enjoining a duty upon them to save the environment. In July, 1,000 trees were saved on the court’s intervention with regard to a proposal by the UP government to axe 3,874 trees for the Agra-Jalesar-Etah road.
The bench then observed, “We are not here for rubber-stamping what states suggest. Our job is to see how every tree can be saved.”
The court, confronted with a similar situation in Delhi, where more than 1,100 trees in the south Delhi ridge area were chopped by DDA for widening a road leading to a multi-speciality hospital, initiated contempt proceedings against DDA, which is pending.
These instances led the bench to consider having a mechanism in place to ensure orders for tree felling which accompany an equal obligation on applicants to plant trees get fulfilled.