In a significant victory for environmental conservation, the West Bengal government’s development project faces scrutiny as the Court steps in to safeguard the state’s environment.
The West Bengal government proposed a development project that would remove hundreds of trees for road construction, citing the need to prevent accidents. However, the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights & Air (Petitioners) contested the plan, arguing that many trees had historical and irreplaceable value, and challenging the adequacy of compensatory afforestation. To address the matter, the Court established a committee of seven experts, tasked with creating comprehensive guidelines for tree-cutting in development projects. These guidelines mandated consideration of the intrinsic and instrumental values of trees, implementation of systems for compensation and compensatory afforestation, and the potential prescription of special measures for environmentally sensitive areas.
In rendering its decision, the Court stressed the importance of aligning such projects with the constitutional right to a healthy environment and India’s commitments to sustainable development. The Court emphasized considerations related to carbon sequestration and climate change as pivotal aspects in the decision-making process.
India is undergoing rapid infrastructure and transportation development, aiming to enhance road networks to accommodate increased auto traffic and better connect remote regions. In West Bengal, Jessore Road, a significant transitway near the India-Bangladesh border, has become a focal point for development. The government proposed a four-lane highway expansion around 2015, necessitating the felling of over 4,000 historic trees, including valued mahoganies and trees over 150 years old.
Reports highlighted the potential environmental catastrophe, with consequences such as species displacement, rainfall disruption, groundwater depletion and contamination, and increased erosion leading to road damage. Activists argued that these trees held cultural and environmental significance for locals, providing resources and protection vital to their livelihoods. Despite investigations by the Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) revealing non-compliance with procedures, the government ignored their letters and proceeded with tree felling in 2017.
In response, APDR filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against the West Bengal Government (Respondents) in the Calcutta High Court under the Tree Act of 2006, which covers the deforestation of non-forest areas. The Plaintiffs contended that the government’s actions violated the government’s statutory and constitutional obligations, neglecting prescribed procedures and infringing on the constitutional right to a healthy environment (R2HE), driven partly by economic interests in the prized timber.
After initially halting the tree-cutting plan, the Calcutta High Court approved a plan to allow for the felling of roughly 350 trees along Jessore Road, with the condition that five trees are planted for each felled. The Plaintiffs appealed and the case moved from the Calcutta High Court to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court scrutinized the plan’s alignment with constitutional R2HE and India’s national and international sustainable development and climate change commitments. Emphasizing the critical impact of such projects on carbon sequestration and climate change, the Court highlighted the increasing significance of this issue in the context of growing national and international concerns about climate change.
In response to the petition, the court instituted a committee of seven experts to formulate comprehensive guidelines for tree-cutting during development projects. This committee was tasked with crafting scientific and policy guidelines governing decisions on tree removal, encompassing assessments of both intrinsic and instrumental tree values. The guidelines also mandated the establishment of systems for compensation and compensatory afforestation, with potential considerations for environmentally sensitive areas.
In 2023, the Calcutta High Court lifted the five-year-long hold on the road development and tree felling. The Indian Supreme Court upheld the decision, dismissing the ADPR’s plea. While the government and courts claimed that less than 400 trees would be felled, the plaintiffs argued that thousands of trees would be lost during the development. The courts maintained that while the environment needed to be protected, development projects necessary for economic growth and safety could not be halted. The balance between development and environmental concerns was ongoing.
The APDR brought the case as PIL, a social action undertaken in the public interest to secure justice for socially disadvantaged parties, which relaxes traditional standing rules. Consequently, the parties bringing the suit need not be directly or indirectly harmed. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Respondents had failed to comply with the 2006 Tree Act and their constitutional obligations. In cases where road widening necessitates tree felling, the National Highways Authority of India must submit a proposal to the state forest department for assessment by an ad-hoc committee to evaluate the environmental impact. The Plaintiffs highlighted that the assessment and approval process had been completed within a single day, and government officials rejected the Plaintiff’s letter requesting an assessment of alternative means to expand the road.
Additionally, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution enshrines R2HE, while Article 48-A imposes a duty upon the State to endeavor to protect and improve the environment, safeguarding the forests and wildlife of the country. In its decision, the Supreme Court invoked these constitutional obligations to justify the centrality of sustainable development in all state developmental policies and establish an expert committee tasked with drafting policy guidelines on deforestation for development projects.
The Court’s decision underscored India’s dedication to international treaties, agreements, and conferences on sustainable development, reinforcing the imperative for the State to prioritize sustainability principles. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that development and conservation are not conflicting strategies but rather complementary.
Moreover, India had formulated a National Action Plan on Climate Change (2008), ratified the international Paris Agreement, and pledged to Nationally Determined Contributions. The impact of deforestation on climate warming is directly linked to these international agreements, as climate change is closely related to environmental integrity and R2HE.
The Supreme Court, responding to the APDR’s PIL, emphasized the need to align development with constitutional R2HE and India’s commitments to sustainable development. The decision underscored the interconnectedness of environmental concerns, climate change, and international agreements. The case exemplifies the intricate balance between development and conservation. Ultimately, following the establishment of guidelines from the expert panel on deforestation, the Indian courts upheld the highway development project and deforestation, prioritizing purported development, economic progress, and safety over potentially viable, less destructive alternatives.
