Supreme Court Criticizes Telangana Over Tree Felling in Hyderabad
Court Slams State for Large-Scale Deforestation: The Supreme Court sharply criticized the Telangana government for felling thousands of trees across 100 acres of the ecologically sensitive Kancha Gachibowli area near the University of Hyderabad. The court found the state’s actions to be in clear violation of environmental norms and existing Supreme Court orders, particularly referencing the landmark 1996 TN Godavarman case.
Immediate Restoration Plan Demanded: The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih, ordered the Telangana government to submit a credible plan for restoring the destroyed green cover within four weeks. The court made it clear that failure to do so could result in “temporary imprisonment” for senior bureaucrats, including the Chief Secretary, and even suggested that a temporary jail could be constructed at the site if necessary.
No Further Tree Felling Allowed: The Supreme Court imposed an immediate halt on all tree felling activities in the area, instructing the Registrar General of the Telangana High Court to visit the site, assess the situation, and submit an interim report. The Wildlife Warden was also directed to take urgent steps to protect the wildlife affected by the deforestation.
State’s Justification Rejected: The state government argued that only “exempted” species under the Telangana Water Land and Trees Act, 2002, were felled, and that self-certification was sufficient for such actions. The court firmly rejected this defense, stating that no state enactment or interpretation can override Supreme Court orders on environmental protection and that even private forests require court permission to fell trees.
Environmental and Wildlife Impact: The court expressed alarm at reports and visuals showing animals fleeing the area and some being attacked by stray dogs due to the sudden loss of habitat. The bench underscored that the primary concern is the restoration of the environment and the protection of wildlife.
Next Steps: The matter is scheduled for further hearing, and the Telangana government must present a detailed restoration plan or face severe judicial consequences. The Supreme Court has reiterated its commitment to go “out of the way” to protect the environment and ensure compliance with its orders.
| Issue | Supreme Court Action/Observation | Telangana Govt Response |
|---|---|---|
| Large-scale tree felling | Immediate halt, interim site report ordered | Claimed only “exempted” trees felled |
| Environmental violation | Restoration plan demanded, jail warning | Stated actions were “bonafide” |
| Wildlife impact | Directed wildlife protection measures | No specific response noted |
| Legal justification | Rejected state’s interpretation of law | Cited Telangana Water Land and Trees Act |
| Further action | Four weeks to submit restoration plan | To comply with court directions |
