The Supreme Court has issued notice on a fresh application concerning a proposed project to establish a graphic design institute in the Aarey area of Mumbai, in the ongoing suo motu proceedings relating to felling of trees in Aarey Forest. Counsel appearing for the interveners on behalf of the petitioners and the State of Maharashtra were directed to file their respective replies within two weeks.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioners referred to an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court on January 25, 2025, in the related review application and submitted that the present application had been brought before the Court in view of that order. Counsel urged the Court to examine the proposal before permitting any further steps, particularly since, according to him, the applicants had not placed sufficient material regarding the suitability of the proposed site or the availability of alternative locations. He pointed out that the proposal was not for a conventional infrastructure project but for a graphic design institute connected with Film City and raised questions about whether such an activity could be accommodated elsewhere without affecting the surrounding green area.
Counsel told the Court that the petitioners did not want to be placed in a situation where every fresh project proposal required them to repeatedly approach the Court without adequate opportunity to respond. He specifically questioned whether the project proponents had undertaken an exercise to identify alternative sites and whether they had placed a suitability report before the Court.
“
“They have not filed any suitability report. They have not filed anything to say whether they have checked for alternative sites which may be available. And even otherwise, my Lord, what kind of reforestation will they do? Will they be able to stick this time to the timelines? Because otherwise each time they have to come and seek an extension from your Lordships. So we are SLP petitioners. We may be given an opportunity to reply to this application.”
The counsel also drew a distinction between earlier development proposals and the present project, submitting that while construction of roads or other essential infrastructure could raise different considerations, the present proposal involved establishing an institute for teaching graphic design.
Counsel further referred to the public hearing conducted in relation to the proposal and the objections that had been considered. He submitted that the project was being proposed in the context of increasing demand for films, visual effects, gaming, animation and related creative industries, but maintained that the Court should also consider the environmental consequences and whether the proposed activity could be carried out within existing buildings or at another suitable location.
He also raised questions regarding the extent of tree felling and transplantation involved in the proposal. During the submissions, it was pointed out that around 124 trees were proposed to be felled and 333 trees transplanted. Counsel questioned whether the proposed number of trees to be affected was genuinely necessary for the project and referred to the possible role of expert institutions, including IIT Bombay, VJTI and the Bombay Natural History Society, in assessing the issue.
The Court was also told that compensatory afforestation measures had been proposed. Counsel submitted that the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra would undertake compensatory afforestation and that the project proponent had given an undertaking to plant 5,000 trees, with a compliance affidavit also proposed to be filed. However, counsel sought clarity on who would be responsible for determining whether the project proponent’s assessment regarding the trees was justified.
Another issue raised was the status of the land and the pending proceedings concerning whether the area could be treated as a protected forest. Counsel pointed out that, apart from the suo motu proceedings, an appeal arising from the Bombay High Court judgment was also pending before the Supreme Court on the issue.
Counsel ultimately sought an opportunity to respond to the fresh application and place the relevant material before the Court. Following the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice on the application and directed the counsel appearing for the interveners on behalf of the petitioners and the State of Maharashtra to file their replies within two weeks.