Supreme Court Halts Hyderabad Tree Felling, Warns Officials of Personal Liability
Last Updated on April 4, 2025 by Amit Patra
An instant judgment has been made by the Supreme Court with reasons in a loud voice against the State of Telangana; it directed an immediate stop to all development activities hundreds of acres in Kancha-Gachibowli area of Hyderabad where massive tree felling operations were already in motion. This was pushed by choking Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih into registering a suo motu case at the apparent alarm on the killing and maiming environmental destruction.
“Until further orders, no activity of any sort, except the protection of trees already existing, shall be undertaken by the State,” said the Court, adding that the Chief Secretary would be “held personally liable” for any non-compliance.
The Court’s intervention was triggered by the inspection report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) of Telangana High Court, showing unfettered development activities cutting down trees on a large scale. The haunting pictures showing peacocks and deer stampeding for safety amid the destruction have implicated that some wildlife had existed in that area with a thick canopy.
The bench sought an explanation for the “alarming urgency” to cut trees, particularly considering that a statutory committee to identify forest lands was set up in Telangana only on March 15 by previous orders of the Supreme Court and had yet to commence its work.
On this, Justice Gavai suddenly interrupted the argument of the Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal appearing for the State, who had just said that this was not forest-land: “Forest or not, whether you have taken requisite permission for felling trees… 100 acres in 2-3 days is something… we would only remind one sentence – howsoever high one may be, not above the law”.
The dispute arose after a Government order issued by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) for alienating 400 acres of the canopy in Kancha Gachibowli for development of IT infrastructure. The area was rapidly cleared of tree cover, which saw protests and as a result, public interest litigation filed in the Telangana High Court, which had already stayed tree felling until Thursday.
The Supreme Court has now insisted that an affidavit be filed by the Chief Secretary to answer five particular queries, namely: the “compelling urgency” behind the development activities, whether environmental impact assessment certification had been secured, whether proper permissions had been secured for tree felling, why certain officials unrelated to forest identification had been included in the state’s committee, and what was being done with felled trees.
This intervention supports the existing legal position prohibiting the executive from decreasing any forest area without compensatory land for afforestation and reflects the growing concern of the judiciary for the environment right in the middle of such cases of rapid urbanization.
