Supreme Court
Association for Protection of Democratic Rights & Air
The State of West Bengal
On Jessore Road, a significant transitway near the India-Bangladesh border, the government proposed a four-lane highway expansion which necessitated the felling of over 4,000 historic trees, including valued mahoganies and trees over 150 years old. Reports highlighted potentially catastrophic environmental 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, the APDR filed public interest litigation against the West Bengal Government in the Calcutta High Court under the Tree Act of 2006, which covered the deforestation of non-forest areas. The plaintiff contended that the government’s actions, driven partly by economic interests in the prized timber at issue, violated its statutory and constitutional obligations by neglecting prescribed procedures and infringing on the constitutional right to a healthy environment (R2HE).
The Calcutta High Court initially halted the tree-cutting plan, but later approved it subject to the condition that five trees would be planted for each tree felled. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which assessed the plan’s alignment with the constitutional R2HE and sustainable development commitments. Recognizing the significant impact of such projects on carbon sequestration and climate change, the Court emphasized the growing importance of addressing these issues nationally and internationally.
Consequently, the Supreme Court established a committee of experts to develop comprehensive guidelines for tree-cutting in development projects, which would include the assessment of intrinsic and instrumental tree values and systems for compensation and compensatory reforestation. Despite concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the potential loss of thousands of trees, the Supreme Court eventually upheld the decision to proceed with the road’s development and tree felling, asserting the necessity of balancing environmental protection with economic growth and safety considerations.