LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) could fell more trees than initially permitted by the Supreme Court for the Mumbai Metro Line-3 project.
CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation
Case Name: In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra)
Judgment Date: 17 April 2023
Date of the Judgment: 17 April 2023
Citation: Not Available in the source
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J, J B Pardiwala, J.
Can a project proponent unilaterally increase the number of trees to be felled for a project after obtaining a conditional permission from the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the felling of trees for the Mumbai Metro Line-3 project. The core issue was whether the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) could exceed the initial limit of 84 trees for felling, as permitted by the Supreme Court, and proceed with felling 124 trees and transplanting 53 trees. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice J B Pardiwala.
Case Background
The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) is undertaking the Mumbai Metro Line-3 project, which requires land at Aarey Colony. Initially, the Supreme Court had permitted MMRCL to approach the Tree Authority for permission to fell 84 trees. However, MMRCL later sought permission to fell 185 trees, without prior approval from the Supreme Court. This led to public interest litigations being filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
The Tree Authority granted permission on 15 March 2023 for felling 124 trees and transplanting 53 trees, subject to the condition that 1533 trees would be planted on the property. The High Court, noting that this was beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s order, directed that no trees should be felled until a clarification was sought from the Supreme Court. Consequently, MMRCL filed an application for clarification before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 29 November 2022 | Supreme Court permits MMRCL to move the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees. |
| 19 December 2022 | MMRCL applies for permission to fell 84 trees. Joint inspection by the Municipal Corporation and MMRCL. |
| 20 December 2022 | Deputy Superintendent of Gardens seeks updated proposal for trees. |
| 2 January 2023 | MMRCL seeks permission to cut 185 trees, without moving the Supreme Court. |
| 12 January 2023 | Superintendent of Gardens issues public notice indicating 185 trees would be affected. |
| 9 March 2023 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay notes the objection to felling more than 84 trees. |
| 15 March 2023 | Superintendent of Gardens grants permission for felling 124 trees and transplanting 53 trees. |
| 31 March 2023 | High Court directs that trees should not be felled until clarification from Supreme Court. |
| 5 April 2023 | MMRCL submits a compilation of relevant documents to the Supreme Court. |
| 17 April 2023 | Supreme Court disposes of the IA, allowing felling of trees with conditions. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in response to public interest litigations, observed that the Tree Authority’s permission to fell 177 trees was beyond the Supreme Court’s initial order that allowed MMRCL to approach the Tree Authority for permission to fell 84 trees. The High Court directed that no trees should be felled until a clarification was sought from the Supreme Court. This led to MMRCL filing an application for clarification before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s previous order dated 29 November 2022, which permitted MMRCL to approach the Tree Authority for permission to fell 84 trees. The court examined whether this order implied that MMRCL could unilaterally increase the number of trees to be felled without seeking further permission from the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Arguments by MMRCL:
- MMRCL argued that the number of trees required to be felled was incidental to the proposal pending before the Tree Authority, for which the Supreme Court had granted permission to pursue.
- They contended that not permitting them to fell more trees would frustrate the Supreme Court’s order and prevent its implementation.
- MMRCL also submitted that the Supreme Court’s order should not be read as a statute, implying that it should not be interpreted too rigidly.
- They stated that a joint inspection revealed that some trees were “missing/dead/fallen” and additional trees had grown since the previous inspection, justifying the need to fell more trees.
Arguments by the Respondents:
- The respondents argued that the Supreme Court had specifically permitted MMRCL to approach the Tree Authority for only 84 trees.
- They contended that the fresh proposal made by MMRCL after the Supreme Court’s order was not bona fide.
- They argued that MMRCL should have approached the Supreme Court if the number of trees to be felled had varied.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by MMRCL | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of Supreme Court Order |
✓ The number of trees to be felled is incidental to the proposal pending before the Tree Authority. ✓ Not permitting more trees to be felled would frustrate the Supreme Court’s order. ✓ The Supreme Court’s order should not be read as a statute. |
✓ The Supreme Court specifically permitted approaching the Tree Authority for 84 trees. ✓ The fresh proposal after the Supreme Court’s order was not bona fide. ✓ MMRCL should have approached the Supreme Court for any variation. |
| Justification for Increased Tree Felling | ✓ Joint inspection revealed missing/dead/fallen trees and additional growth of trees. | ✓ A survey was conducted in 2020, based on which MMRCL sought permission to prune and fell 84 trees. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether permission should be granted in terms of the order passed by the Superintendent of Gardens on 15 March 2023, allowing the felling of 124 trees and transplanting 53 trees.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether permission should be granted to fell 124 trees and transplant 53 trees | Permission granted, subject to conditions. | The Court noted that stopping the project would not be desirable, as substantial steps had already been taken. However, the court penalized MMRCL for overreaching its jurisdiction. |
Authorities
No authorities were cited in the judgment.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| MMRCL | The number of trees to be felled is incidental to the proposal pending before the Tree Authority. | Rejected. The Court held that MMRCL overreached its jurisdiction by seeking to fell more trees than initially permitted. |
| MMRCL | Not permitting more trees to be felled would frustrate the Supreme Court’s order. | Rejected. The Court found that MMRCL’s actions were an attempt to overreach the jurisdiction of the Court. |
| MMRCL | The Supreme Court’s order should not be read as a statute. | Rejected. The Court emphasized that MMRCL was bound by the specific terms of the order. |
| MMRCL | Joint inspection revealed missing/dead/fallen trees and additional growth of trees. | Acknowledged as the reason for the increased number of trees, but did not justify overreaching the Court’s order. |
| Respondents | The Supreme Court specifically permitted approaching the Tree Authority for 84 trees. | Accepted. The Court agreed that MMRCL should have sought permission before exceeding this number. |
| Respondents | The fresh proposal after the Supreme Court’s order was not bona fide. | Accepted. The Court found that MMRCL’s actions were improper. |
| Respondents | MMRCL should have approached the Supreme Court for any variation. | Accepted. The Court stated that this was the only correct course of action. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
No authorities were cited in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily concerned with the fact that MMRCL had attempted to overreach the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by seeking permission to fell more trees than initially permitted. The Court noted that while the project was of public importance and should not be stalled, it was important to penalize MMRCL for its conduct. The Court also took into account the fact that substantial steps had already been taken in the project, including the felling of over 2000 trees.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Overreach of Jurisdiction | 40% |
| Public Interest in Project | 30% |
| Need to Penalize MMRCL | 20% |
| Progress of the Project | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Supreme Court Order (29 Nov 2022): Permitted MMRCL to approach Tree Authority for 84 trees
MMRCL seeks permission for 185 trees from Tree Authority without SC approval
High Court notes that the permission was beyond the scope of the Supreme Court order
Supreme Court allows felling of 124 trees and transplanting of 53 trees, subject to conditions
The Court considered the need to balance the public interest in the project with the need to ensure that its orders are not circumvented. The Court noted that the correct course of action for MMRCL would have been to approach the Supreme Court for permission to fell more trees. The Court also considered the fact that the project had already progressed significantly, and stopping it would not be desirable. However, the Court also emphasized the need to penalize MMRCL for its conduct.
The Court stated, “We are constrained to observe that MMRCL has made an attempt to overreach the jurisdiction of this Court.”
The Court also noted, “If circumstances had transpired which led to a variation in the number of trees to be cut, the only correct course of action would have been to move this Court.”
The Court further stated, “Any such direction will have the consequences of bringing the public project to a standstill. Such a course of action would not be desirable.”
Key Takeaways
- Project proponents must adhere strictly to the terms of orders passed by the Supreme Court.
- If circumstances change, requiring a modification of the order, the proper course of action is to seek permission from the Court.
- Attempting to circumvent the Court’s orders will result in penalties.
- The Court will balance public interest in projects with the need to uphold the integrity of its orders.
Directions
The Supreme Court gave the following directions:
- MMRCL shall deposit ₹10 lakhs with the Conservator of Forests within two weeks.
- The Conservator of Forests shall ensure compliance with all previous directions for afforestation.
- The Conservator of Forests shall submit a report on the status of compliance for afforestation and tree transplantation.
- The Director of IIT Bombay shall depute a team to verify compliance, with costs borne by MMRCL.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that project proponents must strictly adhere to the specific terms of orders passed by the Supreme Court and must seek clarification or modification from the Court if circumstances change. This case reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court’s orders must be followed in letter and spirit and that attempts to circumvent these orders will be penalized.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the felling of 124 trees and transplanting of 53 trees for the Mumbai Metro Line-3 project, as permitted by the Tree Authority. However, the Court penalized MMRCL for attempting to overreach its jurisdiction by seeking to fell more trees than initially permitted. The Court emphasized the need for project proponents to adhere strictly to the terms of its orders and to seek clarification if circumstances change. The Court also directed MMRCL to deposit ₹10 lakhs and directed the Conservator of Forests and IIT Bombay to ensure compliance with afforestation and tree transplantation directions.