Indore Metro tree felling at Rani Sarai can go ahead, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled, but only in phases and with at least two bird experts supervising, so that the roosting parrots have time to settle elsewhere.
Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has declined to stop work on an underground Metro station at Rani Sarai (S.P. Office premises), because an earlier Division Bench ruling on the route binds it. It has, however, allowed the felling of more than 150 trees there only by phased cutting or pruning, with bird experts advising, to protect the thousands of birds, mostly parrots, that roost on them [Priyanshu Jain v. Union of India and Others].
On October 22, 2026, Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai disposed of the public interest litigation (W.P. No. 954 of 2026). The Bench had reserved orders on October 8, 2026 and had visited the site on September 29, 2026 along with the parties and their counsel.
Conditions attached to the felling
- The respondents must not cut all the trees at once or in a random manner, but only under the supervision of, and in consultation with, at least two ornithologists or bird experts, who will advise on cutting trees and pruning branches in a phased manner over a period of time.
- The bird experts must take into account nests, eggs and baby birds on the branches while pruning, and a wildlife rescue team with nets and medical kits must be present on site to help injured birds or fallen chicks.
- The same type of trees must be planted in the nearby area, if space is available, so that trees are available for the birds to roost by the time the project is completed.
- The respondents must comply with their undertaking to plant 2,500 trees, file a report with the Registry within one year, and ensure the planted trees are cared for, with a report and Google images filed every year in April.
- Mr Mondhe may suggest the names of bird experts and the order in which branches should be pruned, and the State must ensure that each bird expert is paid Rs 10,000.
With these directions, the petition was dismissed and disposed of.
Why the station stays where it is
Justice Abhyankar, writing for the Bench, held that the 2024 order had already considered the sanctioned route, had attained finality and was binding. Moving the station would alter the alignment, which the Bench said it could not do indirectly.
“It is pithy saying that what cannot be done directly can also not be done indirectly.”
The Bench criticised the respondents for not drawing its attention to the earlier decision sooner. Doing so, it observed, would have saved the Court’s time and kept the parties from “nurturing a false hope”, since the petitioners “had already lost this petition even before it was filed”.
Thousands of birds, few nests
The Bench recorded what it saw at the site visit, and said it was concerned for the birds.
“…we have also seen thousands of birds, the majority of which were parrots, flocking on the trees but admittedly, most of the birds come there only to roost in the evening and only few have nested on them.”
“Conscious of the plight of the birds”, the Bench said, it was duty bound to make its best efforts to ease their suffering, and the directions above follow from that.
What the petition asked for
The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought directions restraining the respondents from cutting trees at the Rani Sarai land, a prohibitory order against the Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Limited to prevent destruction of the birds’ nests and habitat, compliance with the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and a policy on the transplantation of trees. The Nature Volunteers’ Society intervened through its president, Padma Shri Bhalchandra Mondhe.
When it issued notice on January 30, 2026, a Division Bench had directed, as an interim measure, that no tree be cut or transplanted at the Ranisarai land near Regal Square until the next hearing, and listed the matter for February 16, 2026. The petitioner had contended at that stage that the felling lacked approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and that the trees host protected parakeets.
The petitioner’s arguments
According to the petitioner, more than 150 trees would be felled and the nests of about 1,000 birds destroyed, parrots are protected under the 1972 Act, and the felling would be an offence under it. The petitioner and the intervenor named alternative sites near Rani Sarai, including Regal Talkies, Gandhi Hall and Pritamlal Dua Sabhagrah. The petitioner also asked why the Palasia to Railway Station route curves when the line is to run underground.
The Metro Corporation’s reply
Appearing for the Madhya Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation, counsel told the Court that it was aware birds roost on the trees, but the alignment had already been sanctioned, the station had been squeezed to 150 metres against the standard 180 metres to spare private property, and no free land was available to relocate it. All permissions had been obtained from the Forest Department, it said.
The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs had approved the project on November 30, 2018 at a cost of Rs 7,500.80 crore, and a High Level Centrally Empowered Committee had resolved on March 23, 2026 to carry out compensatory plantation for the 182 trees to be cut. The respondents undertook to plant 2,500 trees.
The Corporation also relied on W.P. No. 10909 of 2024, Raj Lakshmi Foundation v. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which a coordinate Bench on May 3, 2024 rejected a PIL seeking a change in the Metro route.
What was decided, and what was not
Whether felling the Rani Sarai trees would breach the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was not decided. The Bench held back because, as it saw it, a challenge to the station site amounted in substance to a challenge to the Metro alignment already settled by a coordinate Bench, and stare decisis did not let it reopen that question.
What the order contributes is a set of conditions on how the work is done: expert-supervised, phased felling, a rescue team on site, like-for-like replanting and annual reporting to the Court. It offers a template for balancing an approved public infrastructure project against the habitat of roosting birds when the project itself cannot be stopped.
Case Title: Priyanshu Jain v. Union of India and Others [W.P. No. 954 of 2026; Neutral Citation 2026:MPHC-IND:28553]
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench
Date of Order: October 22, 2026 (reserved on October 8, 2026)
Appearances: Advocates Lavesh Saraswat and Shivendra Singh Parihar for the petitioner; Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar for the intervenor; Government Advocate Pradyumna Kibe for the State; Advocate Amol Shrivastava for M.P. Metro Rail Corporation Limited; Advocate Kamakshi Singh for the Indore Municipal Corporation