SC Stresses On Delhi’s Tree Census, Creating Body To Verify Tree Officer’s Work

Tree Census

The Supreme Court on Friday emphasized the urgent need for a tree census in Delhi and proposed the creation of an authority to oversee the work of the tree officer.

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing an application seeking to prevent the Delhi government from allowing tree felling without the Supreme Court’s permission.

During the hearing, the bench noted that the strict implementation of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, was a matter requiring immediate attention.

The bench stated, “Apart from the tree census, that order we are going to pass, we also want to create an authority. That authority will verify whether the tree officer has done a proper job. Somebody has to supervise the permission granted.” The 1994 Act, which aims to preserve trees in Delhi, outlines the duties of the tree authority and the appointment of a tree officer.

The court expressed concern over the need for proper supervision of tree preservation efforts in the city. It asked the lawyers involved in the case to suggest ideas for forming the proposed authority. “Not only individual experts are required, but an institution has to be involved in this process also,” the bench said.

The court also remarked that in environmental matters, “harsh orders are warranted,” and emphasized the importance of strict enforcement of the 1994 Act’s provisions.

The bench also acknowledged the cooperative stance of the lawyers involved in the case, with Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati thanking the court for its efforts to ensure a better future for the environment.

“We are grateful. Your lordships are doing it for our better future, our children’s better future,” Bhati said.

The issue concerning the exemption powers of the Delhi government under Section 29 of the 1994 Act also came up during the hearing. The bench was informed that the Delhi government had been issuing notifications exempting certain areas or tree species from the law’s provisions. One lawyer argued that such powers should be curtailed, saying, “This power, for the interim, has to be curtailed. They can’t keep on issuing notifications under Section 29 (of the Act).”

Another lawyer shared concerns about the ground situation, stating that tree preservation awareness had not led to meaningful action. The lawyer even claimed that two trees had been felled within the Supreme Court premises. The bench instructed the lawyer to place this complaint on record.

Previously on November 22, the Supreme Court proposed setting up a committee of experts to scrutinize tree felling permissions in Delhi. The court remarked that due to the rapid loss of trees, it was essential for the committee to review the approvals granted by the tree authority and tree officers under the 1994 Act. Referring to Section 7(b) of the Act, the bench emphasized the responsibility of the tree authority to conduct a census of existing trees and gather declarations from landowners about the trees on their properties.

An application filed before the court highlighted the alarming rate of tree felling in Delhi, stating that five trees are cut every hour. It also sought to prevent the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change from approving forest diversions in Delhi without the Supreme Court’s consent.

The bench also heard other applications, including one concerning the construction of a foot-over bridge that would require tree cutting. The court had previously directed police officers to visit the site and verify whether any trees had been felled. Bhati informed the court that no trees had been cut at the specified locations.

Court has directed that the matter be listed again on December 18 for further consideration. The court’s ongoing scrutiny aims to ensure that the city’s environmental regulations are enforced effectively, with a focus on transparency and accountability.