The Supreme Court has expressed its strong displeasure over its December 2019 order that allowed tree felling by certain companies in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) for agro-forestry activities, without taking prior permission from the Court.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh observed on Wednesday issued notice to reconsider the order, stating that since nobody knew exactly what the terms agro industry or agro farming meant, the blanket permission would allow anybody and everybody to fell trees in the name of agro-industry. Since agro-forestry was a vague concept, it was susceptible to misuse, noted the top court of the country.
It said while agro-forestry being promoted as a policy was a good move, granting unrestricted permission for felling trees could lead to widespread environmental damage.
A common man wanting to cut 2-3 own trees needed permission but someone doing it for commercial purpose was given a blanket permission, remarked the Court.
Recalling the 2019, the Bench ruled that the provisions of the UP Protection of Trees Act, 1976, would continue to apply to agro-forestry. A mandatory permission would have to be sought from the Court before felling any trees in TTZ, it added.
Senior Advocate ADN Rao, appearing as Amicus Curiae, contended that the exemption granted by an earlier order of the Court would encourage tree plantations by eliminating bureaucratic hurdles. Requiring permissions for tree felling would discourage farmers and agro-forestry practitioners from planting commercial orchards like mango and lemon trees, he added.
The Bench, however, dismissed this argument, stating that environmental concerns could not be sacrificed in the name of agricultural convenience.
Advocate Kishan Chand Jain had filed an application in 2018 seeking permission for agro-forestry activities to continue in the TTZ. In December 2019, the Apex Court granting exemption to Jain from requiring mandatory permission before felling trees for agro-forestry activities.
The Apex Court observed on March 5 that the prayer was against the interest of the environment. It issued notice to Jain asking why the earlier order granting exemption should not be recalled.
The Bench further expressed its disappointment over the passing of such orders, stating that it frustrated the entire purpose of prolonged hearings in the matter.
On the argument that removing the exemption would defeat efforts of afforestation in the TTZ by individuals and private companies, the Bench said the agro-forestry industry was being used as a cover for indiscriminate deforestation.
Powerful lobbyists were pushing for relaxed regulations, which could significantly impact tree conservation efforts that the Court has been championing for many years, it noted.
The Apex Court further ordered the Forest Research Institute (FRI) to conduct a comprehensive tree census in the TTZ and submit a detailed report.
Sections 4 and 5 of the Act provided permission to fell or remove the trees. If trees were felled in violation without permission, there were penal provisions starting from Section 10 onwards. The provisions could not be implemented unless the data of existing trees was available. The data could be made available only if the proper tree census was carried out. Without the tree census, there could not be any effective implementation of the provisions of the 1976 Act, it added.
It further directed the TTZ Authority to formally appoint the FRI as an
authority to carry out the census of all the existing trees within the area of TTZ covered by clause 11 of Section 3 of the 1976 Act, within a week.
Authorities at the State and local levels were instructed to cooperate with the FRI in conducting the survey. The FRI was also ordered to submit an affidavit outlining the methodology and timeframe for the census.
The Apex Court asserted that all provisions of the 1976 Act would continue to apply with full force, ensuring that tree-felling of any kind in the TTZ without prior permission would remain illegal.