By Vikram Kilpady
For the past three decades, economic growth has been the primary goal for Indian governments, often at the expense of governance. In developing nations like India and China, rapid industrial expansion and infrastructure development have led to the widespread destruction of natural ecosystems. The consequences of this unchecked growth—ranging from rising pollution levels to the alarming pace of climate change—are becoming ever more apparent.
To mitigate the loss of forests due to infrastructure and industrial projects, India introduced the Compensatory Afforestation (CA) Fund Act of 2016. The law requires project developers to replant trees on non-forest or degraded land to compensate for deforestation. However, this policy has often been ignored, leading to devastating consequences for the environment.
Stern warning
Recently, the Supreme Court has taken a firm stance against non-compliance with compensatory afforestation obligations. Developers who fail to fulfill their promises of tree planting now risk severe penalties. In some cases, the Court has threatened to order the demolition of under-construction structures or the restoration of land to its original condition if developers do not comply.
A bench led by Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih is currently hearing a petition focused on enhancing nation’s green cover. The justices have scrutinized whether developers followed Court orders regarding compensatory afforestation after obtaining permissions to fell trees for projects.
Justice Oka issued a stark warning: if developers fail to meet their afforestation commitments, the Court will impose severe penalties, including demolishing any construction resulting from deforestation.
Specifically targeting the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Justice Oka said: “If NHAI is short by 100 trees, it will be Rs 10 lakh per tree; more than 100 trees, Rs 15 lakh per tree.”
The NHAI is required to plant over 36,000 trees across several projects nationwide, and while its counsel assured the Court that efforts were underway, the Supreme Court gave NHAI time until mid-November to file an affidavit confirming compliance with previous Court orders.
Widespread non-compliance
The Supreme Court is also closely monitoring other developers for similar violations. In the case of Jaypee Infratech, the Court inquired about compliance for a project where tree-felling permission was granted in 2011.
The new management of Jaypee, which took over after a resolution in June 2024, has been given four weeks to submit an affidavit detailing compliance. If the Court’s requirements have not been met, the developers face the possibility of the land being restored to its pre-construction condition or demolition of structures.
Similarly, Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, which felled over 5,000 trees for a rail bypass project near Agra, was reprimanded for depositing afforestation funds with the forest department, but failing to ensure that the trees were actually planted. The Court emphasized that the responsibility for planting the trees lay with the company, not the forest department, and halted any further work until compliance was achieved.
The Bigger Picture
India’s loss of forest cover has been a growing concern. Between 2001 and 2021, the country lost approximately 10,000 square kilometers of forest with canopy densities above 40%. During the same period, forest cover with a canopy density between 10% and 40% increased by 38,000 square kilometres. While this may seem like a positive development, it does not replace the loss of natural, dense forests.
The Supreme Court has been closely following compensatory afforestation efforts to address this loss. In 2002, the landmark TN Godavarman vs Union of India case led to the creation of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) to oversee reforestation efforts. Yet, despite these measures, non-compliance remains widespread.
This September, the Supreme Court directed developers with permission to fell trees to submit compliance reports or face contempt proceedings.
The Court has also taken a special interest in Delhi’s Ridge Forests, an ecologically sensitive area under constant threat from urban development.
Development vs Conservation
In a recent case, the Court ordered Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor, Vinai Kumar Saxena, to explain which Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officers were responsible for the illegal felling of 1,100 trees.
The trees were cut to widen a road for a new medical facility near the Asola Bhatti sanctuary, an AIIMS campus. This deforestation occurred despite earlier orders protecting the area’s trees.
While the Court has shown a commitment to preserving Delhi’s green cover, it has also recognized the need for development. For example, it refused a petition to halt construction on the Tughlakabad-Aerocity Metro corridor, despite concerns that it would lead to significant deforestation. The Court reasoned that the metro project, by reducing the number of vehicles on the road, could ultimately benefit the environment.
A delicate balance
The Supreme Court faces the difficult task of balancing the demands of development with the need for environmental conservation. In one ruling, the Court emphasized the right of citizens to be protected from the adverse effects of climate change, linking this right to the broader right to a clean environment.
Despite these efforts, the reality is that many trees—like those along the Tughlakabad-Aerocity Metro corridor—will soon be reduced to sawdust. As the deadlines for net-zero targets loom, India must confront the difficult question of how to pursue economic growth without sacrificing its forests and natural resources.