No Uprooting/Transplantation Of Trees For Kolkata Metro Rail Without CEC Permission : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (October 23) ordered the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India to examine the issue of felling and transplantation of trees for the Kolkata metro construction. Until then, no felling or transplantation of trees shall take place without the permission by CEC.

A three-judge bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Prashant Kumar Misra is currently hearing a Special Leave to Appeal filed under Article 136 challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court which declined to halt the construction work for a metro station in Kolkata's Maidan area requiring the uprooting of around 700 trees in the area adjoining Victoria Memorial.

Before the High Court,the present petitioner had sought to stop the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) from continuing its construction work and call for a review of the proposed project by independent experts and to examine and submit an expert report on the feasibility of transplanting the trees.

 On June 20, Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattachary held that public interest needs to be balanced with protecting ecology. It held: "One more unique aspect is that Kolkata is the first city where the underwater metro tunnel has been constructed and successfully being put to use. Therefore, the court has to necessary balance the public interest. We are fully conscious of the need to protect ecology and environment...the plantation programme submitted by the RVNL on April 03, 2024 has been approved by the Forest Department. There are other conditions as well. In the light of the above, it would be incorrect on the part of the petitioner to allege that there is no proper plantation programme nor there is any identification or marking of the trees etc."

Today, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta reiterated that 923 trees are going to be uprooted without the adequate permission of the authorities for the construction of metro rail. He added that the petitioners do not contend that metro rail should not be constructed. 

Gupta submitted that 923 are some of the tallest and oldest, they have taken the Forest Department's permission for only 29 trees and that the rest they argue are covered by the concept of transplantation which is moving mature trees from its original location to a new location. 

Gupta argued that the High Court erred in not considering that the survival rate of transplanted trees is considerably low and the possibility of losing tree cover forever in the Maidan area is high. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad v. UOI (2006).

Counsel for the State, advocate Srisatya Mohanty sought some time stating that they are yet to receive instructions on the matter. To this Justice Gavai remarked that every day the State is escalating the project and that "they should have got instructions by now". 

Advocate Saurav Singh(for Rail Vikas Nigam Limited) stated that in the counter submitted, they mentioned that permission is not required because the trees are being transplanted. 

Gupta argued: "They are saying no competent authority to be approached for transplantation."

Justice Gavai had orally remarked that even if it was transplantation, permission would be required. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta(for Union) vehemently opposed the petitioner and questioned its locus standi. He said: "This is for lifeline of Kolkata."

He submitted that the project is in the public interest and added: "I can understand the affected party. If there is a public interest, the public interest litigant has to satisfy the countervailing interest."

Gupta replied: "Maidan does not belong to anybody so the only affected are the public."

Gupta requested the Court to establish a committee to examine the issue since no committee has looked into the issue, which was objected to by Mehta who stated that the Court would have to trust the authorities. 

Mehta added that 827 trees are proposed for transplant, and 2370 are for afforestation. He stated that 94 trees are also being transplanted. 

Gupta also submitted that transplantation is a "failed concept" in Bombay. He mentioned the name of Environmentalist Devi Goenka. However, Justice Gavai said: "No, they survive."

Case Details: PEOPLE UNITED FOR BETTER LIVING IN CALCUTTA (PUBLIC) v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. SLP(C) No. 20499/2024r

Appearances: Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta (for People United for Better Living), SG Tushar Mehta, Advocate Srisatya Mohanty (State of Kolkata)