Projects requiring felling of 50 trees or more must obtain CEC clearance: SOP
The SOP, issued as a gazette notification dated April 24 and submitted to the Delhi high court, modifies the earlier process, wherein only tree officers from the forest and wildlife department had the sole authority to assess such requests. Under the revised protocol, the CEC's approval will now be required in all cases involving 50 or more trees, a move, officials said, aimed at ensuring transparency and compliance with recent court directives.
The change comes on the directions of the Supreme Court and Delhi high court, which have raised concerns over the indiscriminate felling of trees and inadequate implementation of DPTA by local authorities. The high court also asked the forest department to be involved in the planning stage of infrastructure projects, to ensure that ecological considerations are built in early.
While tree officers will continue to process requests for the felling or transplantation of up to 49 trees, all cases meeting or exceeding the 50-tree threshold will require review and approval from the CEC, in addition to a tree officer's initial permission. The CEC currently reviews all permissions for commercial and tree-felling activities in forests across the country.
'In case of any illicit felling of 50 or more trees, the CEC will be informed by the tree officer within twenty-four hours of receipt of such information,' the SOP said.
A senior forest official said there are multiple cases in both the high court and Supreme Court on tree and tree-related felling, stating this SOP is aimed at bringing clarity and a defined structure to the process. 'The courts in the past have asked for an SOP to be devised. The new SOP clearly states for any instance where more than 50 trees will be felled, the permission will have to be given by the CEC, which normally takes a look at forest-related cases,' the official said.
According to the notification, tree officers will inspect the project site upon receiving an application and assess whether the felling or translocation of trees is essential. The officer is expected to recommend the bare minimum number of trees that must be removed, after carefully examining the site.
The CEC will, in turn, examine all relevant details of the proposal and determine whether the request should be approved as is, modified, or rejected. The committee will also have the power to revise the terms and conditions of any granted permission. The SOP has been formally concurred with by the CEC and is now in effect, officials added.
Bhavreen Kandhari, an environmental activist and a petitioner in multiple court cases, seeking the protection of trees in Delhi, said the SOP adds additional layers of paperwork, but these are mostly procedural checkboxes.
'Mature trees are often lost in the name of development, and tree transplantation and compensatory planting don't make up for that loss. CEC's role in reviewing large scale tree felling adds another layer of oversight but it faces the same challenges as the forest department of enforcement, transparency, and scientific compliances. That does not help in protecting the environment as our laws and constitution demands,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
"Congress showing double standards on Aadhaar issue": BJP's Sambit Patra after Supreme Court verdict on SIR
New Delhi [India], July 12 (ANI): Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision on the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, BJP MP Sambit Patra accused the Congress and Opposition parties of hypocrisy, stating they earlier opposed Aadhaar-voter ID linkage but are now demanding its inclusion. He said this shift exposes their 'double standards' on Aadhaar's role in electoral reforms. Speaking to ANI, Patra said, 'The way the Opposition and the Congress are opposing the Aadhar Card, it shows their double standards. When PM Modi spoke about Aadhaar in the Parliament and said that if there are to be no middlemen, then Aadhaar is required... The Opposition and the Congress spoke against the PM.' 'In 2022, when the government decided to link Aadhaar with the voter card, Congress took the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that Aadhaar is solely for identification purposes and that linking it with the voter card was inappropriate. Today, they are saying that voting rights and citizenship should be decided based on Aadhaar. This reflects the double standards of the Congress,' he added. Reacting to the same court order, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh stated that the Election Commission of India's (ECI) 'spin' on 'no stay' being given has been clearly 'exposed' by the Supreme Court. Ramesh, the General Secretary in charge of Communications for Congress, posted a picture of the order on X, stating that Page 7 of the order clearly indicated that any requested no stay of the petitioners. He then said that deliberately 'misleading' headline management does not befit a Constitutional authority. Meanwhile, All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi welcomed the top court's decision while hitting out at 'ECI sources' for misrepresenting the court's order. He criticised the claims made by EC sources that the constitutional body accepts Aadhar as per page 16 of the Special Intensive Revision, while also informing about the EPIC number being 'pre-printed' on the enumeration forms being meted out. On Thursday, the Supreme Court allowed the Election Commission to continue with its exercise of conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi did not stay the SIR process but asked the ECI to consider allowing Aadhaar, ration cards, and electoral photo identity cards as admissible documents to prove voter identity during the SIR of electoral rolls being undertaken in Bihar. 'We are of the prima facie opinion that in the interest of justice, the Election Commission will also include documents like Aadhaar, Ration Card, Voter ID card, etc. It is for the ECI to decide whether it wants to accept the documents or not, and if it does not, then provide reasons for its decision, which shall be sufficient to satisfy the petitioners. Meanwhile, petitioners are not pressing for an interim stay,' the bench stated in its order. In its order, the top court noted that the timeline for the process is very short since elections in Bihar are due in November. The apex court posted for hearing on July 28 the pleas challenging ECI's move to conduct SIR of electoral rolls in Bihar and asked the poll panel to file its affidavit within one week. During the hearing, the bench opined that Aadhaar should be included within the list of documents permissible as an ID proof. The apex court was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission of India's move to conduct the SIR of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar. The petitions challenging the ECI decision were filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), PUCL, activist Yogendra Yadav, Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra, and former Bihar MLA Mujahid petitions sought a direction to quash the ECI's June 24 directive, which requires large sections of voters in Bihar to submit proof of citizenship to remain on the electoral rolls. The petition also raised concerns over the exclusion of widely held documents like Aadhaar and ration cards, stating that this would disproportionately affect the poor and marginalised voters, especially in rural Bihar. Meanwhile, All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi welcomed the top court's decision while hitting out at 'ECI sources' for misrepresenting the court's order. He criticised the claims made by EC sources that the constitutional body accepts Aadhar as per page 16 of the Special Intensive Revision, while also informing about the EPIC number being 'pre-printed' on the enumeration forms being meted out. (ANI)
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SHRC demands action as custodial violence cases highlight need for reform
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on June 24, 2025, directed the TN government to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to V Priyadharshini, a complainant, and recover it from K Santhamoorthi for violating her human rights when he was the Inspector of C2 Race Course police station in Coimbatore. The order passed by SHRC member V Kannadasan, which directed the government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Santhamoorthi, quoted Section 58 of the Police Act, 2006, on the social responsibilities of the police. Priyadharshini had approached the police with a complaint against her father and brother of criminal intimidation and use of filthy language. Instead of conducting an impartial inquiry, the Inspector sided with the accused and intimidated her. The mandate of the police is to protect and uphold the dignity of people. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures every person the right of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises right to life, liberty and security of everyone and says, 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The Supreme Court and the various high courts have repeatedly issued guidelines to the police on how to treat people humanely. Yet, we read and, now with the visual media, see how brutal the police force is in its day-to-day duties.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Express View on Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Call it back
There are salient differences between Left Wing Extremism (LWE) — which has been flagged by successive governments at the Centre and in the states as a grave internal security threat — and 'urban Maoism'. The former, an insurgency against the state, has targeted security forces, government officials, civilians and politicians and invited a whole-of-government response that includes armed engagement, development work and a host of other policies and actions. The latter is a political term of relatively recent vintage that has been deployed controversially against activists, students and academics who have expressed dissent with the dominant ideology or political establishment. Disturbingly, the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, passed by the lower House, conflates the two. Its loosely defined scope and stringent provisions raise spectres of state overreach and misuse. Armed with vague and opaque definitions, it invites the danger of blurring the lines between extremist violence and non-violent dissent. The Bill fails the test established by the Supreme Court as far back as 1962 in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar. Words and ideas, no matter how critical of the government, even the state itself, do not constitute sedition or a crime unless they can be directly linked to an incitement to violence. The Bill provides for a jail term of up to seven years for 'any action' that is 'spoken or written' or 'by visual representation' that can be construed as a 'danger to peace and tranquillity' or interferes with 'maintenance of public order', and it allows for attaching the property of an accused. In this respect, it is more stringent than the most controversial sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Democracy, in practice, is the right to speak and write, to draw and debate, to disagree and criticise. The Constitution recognises this in its guarantees of the fundamental rights to speech and expression. The Special Public Security Act violates that promise in letter and spirit. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who tabled the Bill, said that it was needed to counter organisations that are 'brainwashing the youth'. He should have more faith in the maturity of the young. He spoke of how LWE influence is waning in the state, as in much of the 'red corridor', which, he said, is down from four districts to two blocks. Why, then, raise the bogey of 'urban Maoism'? It is difficult not to see the Bill as an attempt to arrogate more powers to the state and to help it to criminalise political-ideological opponents. The Maharashtra government must rethink the law.
