Delhi Preservation Of Trees Act | Supreme Court Stops Felling Of More Than 50 Trees Without CEC Approval, Orders Tree Census In Delhi

The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 19) directed that whenever Tree Officers grant permission to fell 50 or more trees under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 the permission must be approved by the CEC before it is acted upon.

“We therefore direct that whenever permission is granted by the tree officer for felling of 50 or more trees in accordance with Section 8 read with section 9 of 1994 Act the said permission shall not be acted upon unless the same is approved by the CEC…CEC will consider the application and all other aspects thereof and will decide whether the permission deserved to be granted or whether any modification is required in the permission or terms and conditions imposed under the permission”, the Court directed.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih also directed the appointment of Forest Research Institute Dehradun to conduct tree census in Delhi under the guidance of three experts.

The Court passed a slew of directions to regulate tree felling permissions, conduct tree census and ensure compliance with compensatory afforestation obligations.

The Court emphasized that the primary objective of the Act is to preserve trees, with permissions for cutting or felling granted only as exceptions and not routinely. It highlighted that the Act reflects the public trust doctrine, obligating the state to protect natural resources, including trees.

A combined reading of Articles 21, 48A, and 51A of the Constitution imposes a duty on the state to safeguard and improve the environment, the Court said, adding that the precautionary principle mandates proactive measures to prevent and remedy environmental degradation and to take stringent action against violators.

Directions Passed By The Court

Scrutiny Of Tree Felling Permissions By The CEC

The Court observed that the objective of the 1994 Act is to preserve trees and that permissions for tree felling should be granted only in exceptional cases. To strengthen oversight:

• The Court directed that permissions for felling 50 or more trees granted by Tree Officers under Section 8, read with Section 9 of the Act, would not take effect unless approved by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
• Tree Officers must forward the application records and permissions to the CEC immediately upon granting permission. The CEC will then scrutinize these records and decide whether to approve, modify, or reject the permissions.
• Except in exceptional cases, permission to fell 50 or more trees should include a condition requiring compliance with compensatory afforestation requirements before commencing the actual felling of trees.
• Copy of Tree Officer's order granting tree felling permission to be provided to the applicant only once the CEC has approved it.
• On the requisition made by CEC, the project proponent or applicant who makes application under section 9 is bound to appear before the CEC.

The Court also highlighted instances where the government invoked Section 29 of the Act, which allows exemptions for felling in public interest. Justice Oka noted misuse of this provision and directed that no notifications under Section 29 would be acted upon without CEC approval.

Implementation Of Tree Census

The Court emphasised the importance of conducting a tree census under Section 7(b) of the Act. “Though the 1994 Act is 30 years old, unfortunately this important duty has not been performed by the tree authority. We must highlight the importance of carrying out census of existing trees. Unless data of existing trees is available it will be impossible for any of the authorities to ascertain whether anyone has engaged in illegal tree felling or cutting”, the Court observed.

The Court directed:

• The Tree Authority to appoint the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to conduct the census.
• Tree Authority to get necessary declarations from all owners and occupiers about the number of trees on their lands.
• The FRI to act in collaboration with three experts: retired Indian Forest Service officers Ishwar Singh and Sunil Limaye, and tree expert Pradeep Kishan.
• The Tree Authority to immediately pass an order formalizing this appointment and file an affidavit detailing the methodology and timelines for the census by February 10, 2025.
• Funding for the census to be provided by the Government of India, with the option to utilize compensatory afforestation funds.

Preventing Deemed Permissions

The Court took note of Section 9(4), which provides for deemed permissions if applications are not decided within 60 days.

• The Court directed Tree Officers to forward all applications under Section 9 to the CEC immediately upon receipt.
• The Court clarified that no deemed permission under Section 9(4) could be acted upon without prior approval from the Court. “For the time being in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India we direct that no one shall act upon tree felling permission under subsection (4) of section 9 without prior permission of this court.”
• Tree Officers must inform applicants that permissions under Section 9 would require CEC approval and that the deeming provision would not apply.

Tree Felling Permissions Not To Be Granted Mechanically

Justice Oka emphasized that tree officers must not issue permissions mechanically but instead assess the necessity of felling or translocation of trees. “The basic function and duty of Tree Authority and Tree Officers is to preserve the trees. Therefore only in case of necessity and for exceptional reasons that permission can be granted for the felling of trees. It is obvious that the tree officer cannot grant permissions mechanically”, the Court held.

The Court outlined the following steps for Tree Officers:

• Personally inspect the site and record satisfaction that felling or translocation is necessary.
• Avoid mechanical approvals of compensatory afforestation proposals. Officers must consider the type of trees to be planted and the suitability of the land offered for afforestation.
• Explore alternatives, such as pruning, to save trees from felling.

“These are the broad considerations which the tree officers must consider while dealing with applications for the felling of trees. However what we have laid down is not exhaustive it will always be open for CEC to lay down additional criteria for consideration of the Tree Officers” the Court observed.

The Court clarified that:

• If a second application is made in the same year for tree felling on the same property and the cumulative total exceeds 49 trees, the second application would also require CEC approval.
• Applications under Section 9 must include a declaration detailing prior applications made for the same property during the year.

Verification of Compliance with Compensatory Afforestation Conditions

The Court directed Tree Officers to conduct a systematic exercise to verify compliance with compensatory afforestation conditions attached to past permissions. They must ascertain whether plantations have survived and initiate actions under Chapter VI of the Act for violations. A comprehensive report on this verification exercise must be submitted by the end of February 2025.

Enhancing Infrastructure

The Court reiterated its earlier observations on the lack of infrastructure available to the Tree Authority and Tree Officers. The Court directed the CEC to evaluate and report on the adequacy of resources by March 2025.

The Court clarified that the aforementioned directions will also apply to all pending applications under Section 8 and 9.

Background

In prior hearings, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of measures to enhance green cover. It criticized the lack of progress by the Delhi Forest Department and decided to appoint external agencies to oversee these efforts.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan presented alarming statistics on tree felling, highlighting a significant shortfall in compensatory afforestation. The Court remarked on the Tree Authority's failure to fulfil its statutory duties, including conducting a tree census and monitoring afforestation efforts.

Case no. – WP (C) No. 4677/1985

Case Title – MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.