The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticized the Telangana government for the large-scale felling of trees on a 100-acre land parcel next to the University of Hyderabad.
The court voiced serious concern over the environmental damage caused by the clearing of forested land and said it is willing to take exceptional steps for the protection of the environment and ecology.
Case Insights
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih questioned the Telangana government on why it was in such a rush to carry out the tree cutting. “What was the tearing hurry in destroying such a vital green zone?” the bench asked during the hearing. The justices emphasized that development should not come at the cost of environmental destruction and urged the state to adopt a more balanced approach.
The court instructed senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Telangana government, to submit a detailed plan outlining how the government intends to restore the 100-acre area that was cleared. The judges noted that accountability is necessary when public resources like forests and wildlife are affected.
Court’s Observation
Justice Gavai mentioned that the bench was disturbed after watching videos that showed animals running in panic, searching for shelter due to the loss of their habitat. He said the footage made it clear that the deforestation had immediate and harmful effects on the local wildlife population.
In response, the court ordered the Telangana Chief Wildlife Warden to take urgent steps to protect any displaced or vulnerable animals. The bench stressed that wildlife protection must be treated as a top priority, especially when human activity directly causes harm to natural habitats.
Temporary Ban
While posting the matter for the next hearing on May 15, the bench passed an oral order clearly stating that no more trees should be cut on the disputed land. “In the meantime, not a single tree will be felled there,” the bench said, making its position unambiguous.
The court also hinted that it might issue stronger orders if it finds the state’s restoration or protection plan unsatisfactory. Environmental safeguards, it said, are not optional but necessary.
Suo Motu Notice
Earlier this month, on April 3, the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance (initiated the case on its own) after receiving reports and complaints about the large-scale tree felling in Kancha Gachibowli forest, located near the University of Hyderabad. The court called it a “very serious” matter, raising concerns over how quickly the green cover was being removed without proper justification.
It had already stayed further cutting of trees and demanded the Telangana government provide a valid explanation for the “compelling urgency” behind the clearing operation.
Student Protests Prompted National Attention
The tree felling came to light after students and faculty from the University of Hyderabad began protesting against the Telangana government’s move to develop a 400-acre land parcel bordering the university campus. Protesters claimed that the land was ecologically sensitive and home to many species of flora and fauna.
Student groups staged sit-ins, wrote letters to authorities, and shared images and videos of the deforestation online, which helped bring public attention to the issue. Their efforts played a key role in prompting judicial action.
Development vs. Environment
The case highlights the ongoing tension between urban development and environmental conservation. While the Telangana government claims the land is needed for infrastructure and expansion, environmentalists and students argue that such actions should not come at the cost of destroying natural ecosystems.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that any development must be sustainable and that states must ensure the protection of nature, wildlife, and green spaces.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
