Forest Clearance Called 'Pre-Planned'; Court Demands Restoration or Threatens Contempt
New Delhi, May 15 – The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Telangana government for the felling of trees near the University of Hyderabad, calling the deforestation “prima facie pre-planned” and warning that failure to restore the forest could land state officials in jail.A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, along with Justice Augustine George Masih, took strong exception to the timing of the deforestation, which allegedly occurred during a long weekend when courts were not in session.
“Prime facie, it appears that it was all pre-planned. Three days’ holidays were coming, and you took advantage as the court would not be available,” remarked Chief Justice Gavai.
Suo Motu Action and Sharp Observations from the Bench
On April 3, the apex court had taken suo motu cognisance of the deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli Forest and ordered a status quo, barring any activities other than protection of existing trees.Despite this, the court noted that the state proceeded to fell trees using several bulldozers without seeking prior permission, prompting the court to issue a stern warning.
“If you want to be saved from contempt, better take a decision to restore the forest,” the bench cautioned the state, adding that continued attempts to defend the action would put the chief secretary and other involved officials in legal jeopardy.
Satellite Imagery Confirms Forest Density
Senior advocate K Parameshwar, acting as amicus curiae, cited a report from the Forest Survey of India submitted to the Central Empowered Committee. The report, based on satellite imagery, indicated that 60 per cent of the 104-acre area affected was either moderately or heavily forested.Telangana Government’s Response Under Scrutiny
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Telangana government, assured the court that no activity was currently underway and that the government would comply with the directives in “letter and spirit.” He also referenced a counter affidavit filed by the state, asserting that ecological preservation and IT development could coexist.However, the bench dismissed this line of argument, stating, “That is not the question here. The question is, felling of thousands of trees taking advantage of the long weekend.”
Restoration and Whistleblower Students
The court was also informed that students who had tried to raise concerns about the deforestation faced FIRs while their university examinations were ongoing. The bench advised them to file a separate plea, emphasizing that its current concern was limited to forest protection.One of the advocates stressed that any restoration work should ideally be initiated during the upcoming monsoon season, yet noted that no such plan had been presented by the state.
