Supreme Court forms Expert Committee to Decide on Felling of Trees for Development Projects (25 March 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 25th March, 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 169

Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna J., and V. Ramasubramanian J.

Can development projects proceed when they necessitate the felling of old, irreplaceable trees? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, highlighting the need to balance environmental conservation with developmental needs. The court recognized the need for a scientific approach to assess the value of trees and their impact on the environment.

The bench comprised of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde.

Case Background

The case originated from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning the proposed construction of Road Over Bridges (ROBs) and the widening of roads in West Bengal. The State of West Bengal argued that these projects were essential to prevent accidents. However, the projects required the felling of a significant number of trees, some of which were up to 150 years old. An expert committee report revealed that around 50 trees had already been felled, and another 306 were at risk. These trees were described as “historical trees” with “irreplaceable value,” which could not be replaced through compensatory afforestation. The trees could also not be transplanted elsewhere.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to the following legal framework:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The right to a clean and healthy environment is recognized as a fundamental right.

• Article 48-A of the Constitution of India: This imposes a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.

• International treaties, agreements, and conferences: India is committed to sustainable development and growth.

• National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) 2008: Recognizes the commitment to increase tree cover from 23% to 33%.

• Paris Agreement 2015: India committed to creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.

The Court emphasized that sustainable development must be central to any development policy. Conservation and development should be seen as complementary strategies.

Arguments

The State of West Bengal argued that the construction of ROBs was necessary to prevent accidents and ensure public safety. The petitioners, on the other hand, emphasized the environmental importance of the trees, some of which were very old and irreplaceable. The arguments were centered around the need to balance development with environmental conservation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the order. However, the core issue was:

1. How to balance the need for development projects with the need to protect the environment, particularly when such projects require the felling of old trees?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court referred to the following authorities:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to clean and healthy environment.
• Article 48-A of the Constitution of India – Duty of the State to protect the environment.
• National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) 2008 – India’s commitment to increase tree cover.
• Paris Agreement 2015 – India’s commitment to create additional carbon sinks.

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not give a final judgment on the merits of the case. Instead, it constituted an expert committee to develop comprehensive guidelines for decision-making regarding tree felling for developmental projects. The court emphasized that compensation for felled trees should be calculated based on their environmental value, not just timber value. The court also highlighted the importance of sustainable development and the need to balance conservation with development.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court affirmed that the right to a clean and healthy environment is a fundamental right.
• Article 48-A of the Constitution of India: The Court stated that it is the duty of the State to protect and improve the environment.
• National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) 2008: The Court noted the national commitment to increase tree cover.
• Paris Agreement 2015: The Court emphasized India’s commitment to creating additional carbon sinks.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the need to balance development with environmental protection. The Court recognized the irreplaceable value of old trees and the importance of a scientific approach to assessing their worth. The Court also emphasized the need for sustainable development and the importance of India’s commitments to international agreements on climate change.

The Court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the age and number of trees to be felled, and the legal aspects, such as the constitutional and international obligations related to environmental protection.

The Court considered various aspects, including the need for development, the environmental impact of tree felling, and the legal framework for environmental protection. The Court’s decision to form an expert committee was a way to balance these competing interests.

The Supreme Court observed, “It is essential to strike the right balance between environmental conservation and protection on one hand, and the right to development on the other, while articulating the doctrine of sustainable development.”

The Court also noted, “conservation and development need not be viewed as binaries, but as complementary strategies that weave into one another.”

The Court further stated, “conservation of nature must be viewed as part of development and not as a factor stultifying development.”

Key Takeaways

• Development projects must consider environmental impact, especially the felling of old trees.
• Compensation for felled trees should be based on their environmental value, not just timber value.
• Sustainable development requires balancing conservation and development.
• Expert committees can play a crucial role in providing scientific guidelines for environmental decision-making.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the formation of an expert committee with the following mandate:

• Develop scientific and policy guidelines for cutting trees for developmental projects.
• Categorize trees based on environmental value, considering age and girth.
• Provide special treatment for geographical or eco-sensitive areas.
• Prescribe a mechanism for assessing the intrinsic and instrumental value of trees.
• Mandate rules regarding alternate routes/sites for projects.
• Prescribe the mode of compensation, financial and otherwise.
• Specify the manner of compensatory afforestation.
• Consider the need for a permanent expert body.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a balance must be struck between environmental conservation and developmental needs. The Court emphasized that conservation and development are not opposing concepts but rather complementary strategies. The Court also highlighted the importance of assessing the environmental value of trees, not just their timber value, when considering development projects that require tree felling. This decision reinforces the principle of sustainable development and the need for a scientific approach to environmental decision-making.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in this case underscores the critical need to balance development with environmental protection. By forming an expert committee, the court seeks to establish a scientific and policy-based framework for making decisions about tree felling in developmental projects. This approach emphasizes the importance of sustainable development and the need to consider the environmental value of trees in addition to economic factors.