The Supreme Court delivered a series of directions on multiple environmental issues, from removal of dry trees in Himachal Pradesh and regulation of saw mills near forest areas, to the proposed Aravali Zoo Safari project, a road through Rajaji Tiger Reserve, a coal-based thermal power plant in an eco-sensitive zone, and contempt proceedings over felling of 2,673 trees in Goa, emphasising that existing judicial directions must be implemented in letter and spirit and cautioning against repeated recourse to the Court for matters already governed by earlier orders.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N.V. Anjaria was hearing the batch of applications.
Removal of Dry, Fallen, Fungus-Infected or Diseased Trees
The Court has clarified that no fresh blanket permission is required for the removal of dry, fallen, fungus-infected or diseased trees from private land in Himachal Pradesh, observing that such relief already stands covered by its earlier orders.
Hearing applications filed by small farmers and landowners from different districts of Himachal Pradesh, the Bench noted that the prayer was limited to the removal of dry and disease-affected trees. The Court held that this issue had already been addressed in its February 16, 2018, order.
The Court noted that the 2018 order, as well as subsequent orders dated May 10, 2023, did not appear to have been brought to the notice of the High Court while passing the December 5, 2025, order that led to the present applications.
On a cumulative reading of its earlier directions, the Bench clarified that there is already permission for removal of dead, fallen and fungus-infected trees standing on private land, subject to compliance with conditions imposed by the Court. “No separate permission is required,” the Court indicated.
However, the Bench made it clear that no blanket or unregulated permission could be granted for the felling of green trees. The Bench also expressed concern that similar interlocutory applications are being filed repeatedly each year from hilly states such as Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh during the felling season.
Referring to its earlier approach in Jammu & Kashmir, the Court recalled that it had directed the State to codify a regulatory framework. “Why don’t you codify this into rules and have a committee?” the Bench noted, observing that once the Jammu & Kashmir rules were framed and approved, annual applications stopped.
The Court directed the concerned State governments to constitute committees in terms of paragraph 8 of the February 16, 2018, order and submit compliance reports within two weeks, indicating that once the regulatory mechanism is in place, such applications can be dealt with at the appropriate level without repeated recourse to the Supreme Court.
Saw Mills within the Reserved Forest
Hearing a batch of applications relating to Saw Mills allegedly operating within forest areas and within a 10-kilometre radius of forest land, the Bench noted that comprehensive directions had already been issued by the Court in its October 5, 2015, order regulating wood-based industries.
“How many times will we pass the order? There are already orders to prohibit it, to prevent it, to close them down. Only compliance is required,” the Court observed.
The Bench expressed concern that parties were directly approaching the Supreme Court instead of first seeking remedies before the jurisdictional High Courts.
“I think we have completely denigrated the High Courts of their jurisdiction…. “You don’t allow them to learn environmental law, company law… and tomorrow you want to bring them here and show their magic? What kind of system structure are we developing?”
Disposing of the sawmill-related applications, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts, directing that such matters be placed before Environment Benches and further directing the Registry not to entertain applications alleging non-compliance of the 2015 order.
Aravali Zoo Safari Project
The Bench then took up applications concerning the proposed Aravali Zoo Safari project in the Aravalli range. The Court made it unequivocally clear that no permission would be granted at this stage, even for a single inch.
Although the State submitted that the project area had been reduced from 10,000 acres to 3,300 acres and a revised Detailed Project Report (DPR) could be examined by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the Court declined.
“We will not permit anything. We don’t want the platform of this Court to be used for this kind of exercise,” the Bench observed.
Emphasising a holistic approach, the Court said:
“Aravali neither starts nor ends in Haryana. Aravali neither starts nor ends in Rajasthan. It has a full range. We have to take a holistic view…..We are absolutely firm. We will not allow anybody to touch this Aravali range… unless on a very scientific and holistic report prepared by an impartial body of experts.”
Rajaji Tiger Reserve Road Project
The Court then dealt with applications concerning an 11-kilometre road stretch through the Rajaji Tiger Reserve in Uttarakhand. The State argued that the road was meant to provide connectivity to 18 villages with a population of over 41,000 residents. It assured the Court that it would comply with conditions imposed by the CEC, National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), and National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA).
However, the Bench noted that the State had initially proposed allowing 150 commercial vehicles, including dumpers and trucks, per day. Disallowing that the court remarked that “You are trapping the Court order to allow 150 vehicles.”
The Court clarified that while improving access for villagers was legitimate, commercial exploitation would not be permitted. Permission was granted for metalling the road strictly for access to villages, subject to safeguards. The Court made it clear that commercial traffic was prohibited.
“Roads we want. If villages are suffering, roads have to be constructed. But in the name of providing access, you cannot open it for commercial benefit.”
Coal-Based Thermal Power Plant Dispute
The Bench also heard arguments concerning a proposed coal-based thermal power plant in Uttar Pradesh, allegedly located in an eco-sensitive zone inhabited by sloth bears. Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that environmental clearance (EC) had been granted while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
The Bench acknowledged broader concerns about environmental compliance mechanisms. “On paper, 500 trees will be planted. On paper, one flood will come and all 500 trees will disappear. What to do?”
The Court emphasised the need for robust enforcement machinery and scientific evaluation while questioning: “We are not doubting what you are saying. But can it be permitted with proper safeguards?
The matter has been directed to be listed for further hearing, with replies to be filed by the project proponent, the State, and the Union of India. The Court also indicated that any development undertaken would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings.
Felling of 2,673 trees in Goa
The Court also disposed of contempt proceedings arising from the felling of 2,673 trees in Goa in violation of its February 4, 2015, status quo order, while issuing strict directions to ensure ecological restoration and long-term survival of replanted saplings. The contempt petition alleged that, despite the Court’s clear prohibition, large-scale deforestation had taken place. During the hearing, it was recorded that no prior permission of the Supreme Court had been obtained before the trees were felled.
The State of Goa acknowledged before the Court that the felling without prior approval amounted to contempt. The project proponent, Goa Tamnar Transmission Project Limited (GTTPL), a private transmission licensee, shifted the substation project to an alternate site and handed over land for compensatory afforestation. Approximately 23 hectares of land was made available and over ₹22 crore was deposited towards compensatory measures.
The Court examined reports submitted by the State CAMPA (Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority), which inspected the plantation carried out to purge the contempt. While afforestation on one plot was found to have been done in a “methodical and scientific manner,” re-verification of plantations at other sites showed an average survival rate of 73.46%, implying mortality of roughly 27%.
“Broadly, that 27% deficiency is there,” the Court observed.
The project proponent claimed in an affidavit that the survival rate was higher, but the Court relied on the official CAMPA verification. The Court directed that the 27% casualty replacement must be undertaken strictly in accordance with CAMPA’s recommendations and within prescribed timelines. The entire expenditure for replacement, watering, maintenance, and ensuring plant health is to be borne by the project proponent.
“Any objection, delay or reluctance shown by the project proponent shall be deemed to be a revival of contempt proceedings,” the Court warned.
The Bench further directed CAMPA to formulate a plan to ensure the healthy growth of the surviving 73% saplings. If required, maintenance must continue for an additional five years beyond the originally contemplated period, entirely at the cost of the project proponent. The 27% replacement plantations are to be maintained for ten years from the date of each seasonal plantation.
“The objective is that eventually there is zero mortality and all the plants duly survive and grow,” the Court emphasised.
The contempt proceedings were disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek revival in case of non-compliance.