Over 12,000 trees cut in Delhi in under 1K days, SC told

Officers entrusted with protecting Delhi’s trees granted permission to chop down over 12,000 trees in around 30 months – an average pace of more than 12 trees a day – data presented in the Supreme Court showed. Noting this, the apex court remarked that the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (DPTA), meant to safeguard trees, was being used to permit their felling instead.

The court was hearing an application filed by Bhavreen Kandhari, who highlighted that over 60,000 trees were chopped in Delhi between 2015 and 2021. A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka suggested conducting a tree census in Delhi and proposed the formation of an expert body to oversee permissions granted by so-called “tree officers” – appointed under DPTA – particularly for cutting more than 25-50 trees.

After going through the responses filed by the tree officers of the south, north, west and central zones, the bench said: “The biggest failure has been in understanding that these Acts are not for cutting trees but preserving them.”

The affidavits of the four officers filed early this week revealed that 12,052 trees were felled from in the 31-odd months between January 2021 to August 2023. Over a period of across 973 days, 3,854 trees were felled in the south, 3,548 in west, 2,956 in central and 1,694 in north.

The court was informed that like the 1994 Act in Delhi, the states of Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, too, had tree preservation laws. The bench emphasised that these laws are intended to preserve trees, not facilitate indiscriminate felling.

Posting the matter for Thursday, the bench, also comprising justice Manmohan, said, “We propose to pass orders on tree census as to which agency will do it. Unless there will be a proper tree census, the law cannot be effective.”

“There cannot be an indiscriminate approach for felling of trees. We also will decide on a body that can vet proposals for cutting of trees. Suppose there are 25 trees to be cut or say 50 trees, there will be a supervisory body. This will require the body to conduct spot visits.”

Senior advocates ADN Rao and Guru Krishnakumar, assisting the court as amicus curiae, agreed to consult the statutory expert body which assists court on environment matters – Central Empowered Committee (CEC) – on whether it would play the supervisory role. Krishnakumar said that the body is already overworked.

Already, in another matter concerning enhancing the green cover in Delhi, the court had roped in the services of three experts – former IFS officer Ishwar Singh, former principal chief conservator of forests Sunil Limaye and environmental activist Pradeep Kishen – to recommend scientific methods for increasing Delhi’s tree cover.

The court proposed assigning the tree census to the Forest Survey of India (FSI) or experts it had previously engaged, such as former forest officials and environmentalists. It noted that a similar census could be ordered for the Taj Trapezium zone – the area around the Taj Mahal – to maintain ecological balance.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Centre, informed the bench that she had already interacted with FSI and the Indian Forest Research Institute, and the agencies have the wherewithal to conduct the census. However, she noted that under the DPTA, 1994 the job of carrying out the census is of the Tree Authority. She suggested that the forest department’s work can be supervised by any of the experts recommended by the court.

The bench said, “Once we create a mechanism, we can’t micromanage everything. We can ask FSI or the three experts selected by us to assist the Tree Authority.”

Appearing for Kandhari, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said: “Going by what is suggested it seems the Tree Authority has done a stellar job. It has only met twice since its formation and we have shown how they have been allowing trees to be cut in Delhi.”

The court noted that while the Tree Authority had been ineffective, the goal was to establish a mechanism that fits within the legal framework, with the CEC or other experts ensuring objectivity.