‘Sustainable development also has to be permitted': SC refuses to halt felling of trees for Mumbai tunnel project
'Environment has to be protected, but sustainable development also has to be permitted,' Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, presiding over a two-judge bench, said.
The Supreme Court then granted permission to the Maharashtra tree authority 'to proceed further with the application of the project proponent seeking permission for felling of the trees'.
'However, we clarify that no trees shall be actually felled without the permission of this court. We direct the project proponents to place on record the report of the experts showing that no other alternative than felling of 95 trees for digging of the shaft is available. The project proponent will also place on record the plan for compensatory afforestation to compensate for the loss of trees that would be felled for digging the shaft,' the bench also comprising Justice Vinod Chandran said in its order.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the project proponent, said the expert report is ready and will be submitted to the court. He pointed out that, as per the report, 11,000 trees will have to be planted as compensation.
While only 95 trees are planned to be cut in the first phase, the entire project would necessitate 1,094 trees to be cut.
'No doubt that the protection of environment is important, as has been consistently held by us that the resources are held in trust for the future generations. However, at the same time, the necessity for carrying out developmental activities cannot be ignored,' the bench said.
'If the country has to progress, the development of infrastructure is also necessary. Unless a proper infrastructure is put in place, the country cannot progress. No doubt that while permitting such development, steps needs to be taken that least damage is caused to the environment. Further compensatory measures which has to compensate the loss caused to the environment have to be undertaken. It has already been insisted that the number of trees to be planted is in multiples of the trees felled. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, we are inclined to allow the application,' the bench added.
Appearing for activists opposing the tree felling, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said the shaft area fell in the environmentally fragile Aarey colony, where a controversy had risen some years ago over the felling of trees for constructing a car shed for Phase 3 of the Mumbai Metro Line project.
He pointed out that in the course of the proceedings in the Aarey matter, the Supreme Court had on December 20, 2024, asked Maharashtra if there was any proposal to fell more trees in Aarey colony.
Pointing out that the proponent of the tunnel project had moved the tree authority much earlier than this, on March 4, 2024, Sankaranarayanan said that the state in its reply affidavit filed on January 8, 2025, said, 'As per reports from MMRCL [Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd], at present there is no tree cutting proposal of MMRCL pending with the tree authority of the municipal corporation.'
Countering this, Rohatgi said, 'That was for Metro carshed project, nothing to do with the tunnel project.'
He added that the place where the shaft is to be dug is not in Aarey colony, but is a part of the Film City area. 'This not part of Aarey colony. This is Film City… though it falls within Film City area, as a matter of abundant precaution, application was moved (before SC),' he said.
'This is literally death by a thousand cuts. Every three months, they will come with an application,' Sankaranarayan said.
To this, CJI Gavai said, 'We also have a concern for the environment. See Coastal Road, how much it was opposed and how it has facilitated residents of Mumbai. A person can come from airport to South Mumbai within 30 to 35 minutes. Earlier, it used to take 1.5 hours. If one uses Atal Setu, one can go to South Mumbai from Vashi within 40 minutes. We have always advocated that environment has to be protected, but at the same time, sustainable development also has to be permitted.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Tamil Nadu govt. urges Madras HC to exempt ‘Ungaludan Stalin' and ‘Nalam Kaakum Stalin' schemes from prohibitory order
The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Madras High Court urging it to clarify that its interim order prohibiting the use of the name of any living personality in the nomenclature of government schemes would not be applicable to 'Ungaludan Stalin' and 'Nalam Kaakum Stalin' schemes. Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan on Thursday (August 3, 2025) accepted a request made by Advocate General P.S. Raman for an early hearing of the modification petition since the Nalam Kaakum Stalin scheme was all set to be launched across the State on Saturday (August 2, 2025). The judges said, the petition, if filed by Friday, would be taken up for hearing on Monday (August 4, 2025). Within a couple of hours, a modification plea was filed by the State government in the High Court Registry along with a detailed affidavit sworn by Public department secretary Reeta Harish Thakkar. The affidavit said the public outreach programme titled 'Ungaludan Stalin' had been in operation for quite sometime now and even the public interest litigation petitioner Shanmugam, in whose case the interim order was passed, had not sought any ex-parte interim order against that scheme. Similarly, a Government Order for the Nalam Kaakum Stalin scheme, aimed at taking healthcare to the doorsteps of the beneficiaries, was issued on June 3, 2025 itself, the Public Secretary said, and contended that only the launch was scheduled to be held on August 2, 2025 by conducting health camps in all districts. Further, stating that the pamphlets, brochures, application forms and other related documents for the scheme had already been printed, Ms. Thakkar said, enormous efforts taken to launch the scheme on Saturday would go waste if the prohibitory interim order was made applicable to it. 'The scheme has been introduced in the name honourable Chief Minister who is a constitutional authority and it cannot be construed to have been introduced in the name of a political personality. Usage of photos of former Chief Ministers is also not expressly prohibited by the Supreme Court,' her affidavit read. Stating that the government was prepared to contest the main PIL petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit, the secretary said: 'The present petition is being filed for the limited purpose of seeking clarification so that the order may not be applicable to the Nalam Kaakum Stalin scheme that is being launched tomorrow.'
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Religion vs dissent: Which right wins?
The Supreme Court has, through multiple judgments, affirmed the right to protest while imposing 'reasonable restrictions' on its exercise in public spaces. The Court's rationale has been that the right to protest cannot be exercised at the expense of public order, with considerations such as the smooth flow of traffic weighing on the court's mind. As the Kanwar Yatra ended this year, the Delhi Police saw a surge in complaints on traffic congestion, excessive noise and disturbances well into the night over the span of a few days. There have been reports of hooliganism, aggression and violence by the kanwariyas. In India, streets are not just for commuting: The everyday affairs of community, religion, celebration, mourning, and social life play out on them too. (ANI) There are few legal challenges to these acts or restrictions on the Kanwar Yatra. Religious practice, the reasoning goes, must be given a longer rope. But does such accommodation on disruption of regular life in the city pass muster? Every year, several groups of kanwariyas traverse the streets of North India. In recent years, the Kanwar Yatra has grown in both popularity and scale — large trucks are hired, food stalls set up (with QR codes displaying information on the seller's religion in some places) and roaring boomboxes announce its arrival. It may seem that the yatra has turned into an opportunity for unrestrained revelry and lawlessness. Often, the yatra seems no more about personal, pious observations, but a means of loud and disruptive assertion. By and large, the kanwariyas have a de facto immunity — actions that would normally invite the attention of law enforcement agencies are ignored and even actively permitted. In India, streets are not just for commuting: The everyday affairs of community, religion, celebration, mourning, and social life play out on them too. But the access to this public space, and the degree to which rights can be exercised, are differentiated. Who may occupy a public space and for what purpose is neither universal nor equal. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Supreme Court held that the rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of protestors have to be balanced with the rights of commuters. Permission for a demonstration or public meeting should be granted keeping in view its effect on traffic, human safety, and public tranquillity. Similarly, in Himat Lal Shah (1973), the Court held that the right to a public street can be regulated so that all can enjoy that right. In the wake of protests at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act, the Supreme Court found in 2020, that the right to dissent could not be at the cost of inconvenience to commuters and authorities must take action to prevent undue encroachments and obstructions in public spaces. In 2021, during the farmers' protests, the Supreme Court once again remarked that protests could not inconvenience the general public and lead to roads being blocked. The only time that the Kanwar Yatra has been made subject to legitimate restrictions was in 2021, when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the yatra held despite the rising cases of Covid-19. No doubt, all sects have a right to profess and practise religion, subject to 'public order, morality and health'. The right to protest is restricted by similar considerations. Should the State then not be equally concerned by the civic inconveniences caused by religious processions, as it is by the peaceful public gathering of dissenters? If freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of our Constitution, their equal application is its chief anchor. The popular saying 'your right to swing your wrist ends where my nose begins' must apply in equal measure to all those who lay claim to a public space. Katyayani Suhrud and Trisha Chandran are lawyers practising in the Supreme Court of India. The views expressed are personal.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Award for The Kerala Story invites a storm of criticism
The National Film Award jury's decision to bestow two awards, including the best director award to Sudipto Sen, for the film The Kerala Story has invited a storm of criticism in Kerala. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in a statement marking his protest, said the jury insulted the noble tradition of Indian cinema that stood for religious brotherhood and national integration by awarding a film that was built on lies to defame Kerala and spread communalism. 'By honouring a film that spreads blatant misinformation with the clear intent of tarnishing Kerala's image and sowing seeds of communal hatred, the jury has lent legitimacy to a narrative rooted in the divisive ideology of the Sangh Parivar. Kerala, a land that has always stood as a beacon of harmony and resistance against communal forces, has been gravely insulted by this decision. It is not just Malayalis but everyone who believes in democracy must raise their voice in defence of truth and the constitutional values we hold dear,' he posted in X. General Education Minister V. Sivankutty said recognising The Kerala Story, a film that spreads hate and baseless allegations, devalued all the other awards. 'It is extremely regrettable that a national award is being given to a film that is full of baseless allegations and hate propaganda. This is a recognition of attempts to create divisions in society. Such trends do not augur well for the pluralism of our country,' he said. Social media platforms were abuzz with posts criticising the National Film Award jury for awarding the film. Ahead of the film's release two years ago, various organisations from Kerala had moved the Supreme Court calling for a ban. Though the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court refused to stay the film's release, the makers of the film had to remove its teaser after their claim about '32,000 women' from Kerala joining the IS. They also altered the trailer to say that it was a 'compilation of the true stories of three young girls.' They also added a statement to the film which said that it was a work of fiction. The ruling Left Democratic Front and the Opposition United Democratic Front were united in their opposition to the film, with much of the civil society too calling it an attempt to malign the State. Only the Bharatiya Janata Party openly endorsed the film in Kerala. The film also led to a flurry of social media posts and videos titled 'The Real Kerala Story,' portraying stories of communal amity from the State. Documentary filmmaker Sanu Kummil made the documentary The Unknown Kerala Stories portraying six stories of communal harmony from different corners of Kerala.
