The Supreme Court directed the Mumbai civic body to submit detailed affidavits and afforestation plans in the Aarey case. It ordered multiple status reports with timelines, videography, and progress updates, scheduling further review in March–April 2026.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court issued firm directions to ensure compliance with environmental safeguards in the Aarey tree-felling case. It ordered the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai to file a detailed affidavit specifying the exact location and particulars of additional land identified for compensatory afforestation and submit an approved afforestation plan with the number of trees and a clear timeline.
The bench constituting Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed for a status report is to be filed by the corporation within two weeks, followed by another by 31st March 2026 with plantation details and videography. A further progress report is due by May 2026. The matter will be reviewed in late March or early April 2026.
The case relates to environmental concerns arising from the felling of thousands of trees in the ecologically sensitive Aarey forest area for infrastructure development.
Submissions before the Court:
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the Aarey forest raised serious objections to the actions of authorities.
He submitted:
“they have gone ahead and chopped thousand trees, and now they say, sorry, we can’t go in a forest. We need some other land.”
The counsel alleged that authorities proceeded with large-scale deforestation and are now seeking alternative land for compensatory afforestation.
Responding to the allegations, counsel for the Municipal Corporation attempted to justify the project and its compliance with environmental norms.
He stated:
“‘ll explain, it is not like that, fellow. We have only asked for permission. I am the Bombay Municipal Corporation Milad. We are building a tunnel. Bombay near the Aare Forest. There is a tunnel that we are building for which Milad we need some trees to be cut, and for that, this compensatory afforestation.”
The counsel maintained that tree cutting was carried out after seeking necessary permissions and that compensatory afforestation was being undertaken.
The Chief Justice questioned the Corporation on whether alternative land for plantation had been identified.
CJI:
“you identified the land? now”
To this, the counsel replied:
“we had identified. That land is not sufficient, so we are only asking for some more time.”
The Chief Justice further sought clarification. CJI asked,
“Other land means that you want a complete alternative land, a compact piece, or you want to identify some more land in addition to this land?”
The counsel responded:
“We have already identified additional land, and we only need permission till June, because now we have… There is a separate corporation which does all these, planting of trees, etc”
The Corporation’s counsel further explained the difficulty in utilizing the earlier identified land.
He submitted:
“we have identified some land, additional land, where all these trees can be planted. It is not that we don’t want to do it. It is only that this particular land, only three acres can be, we can plant. The others, we can’t use the other portion for it.”
When asked about the total requirement, the Chief Justice inquired:
“How much land is required to be erected?”
The counsel replied:
“27 acres was earmarked”
Expressing concern over delays, the Chief Justice observed:
“So why don’t you identify the land within two weeks?”
The counsel insisted,
“Land is identified, Milord. Land is identified. Then shows the plan, how are you going for plantation. My Lord, can I show you… It is prayed that this application is for extension of time for compliance of order dated 17th November.”
Directions of the Court:
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court issued strict directions to ensure compliance with environmental safeguards.
The Court directed:
i) The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai shall file an affidavit providing full particulars of the additional land identified for compensatory afforestation, including its exact location.
ii) The Corporation must submit an afforestation plan approved by the Forest Department or any competent expert agency, specifying the number of trees and a clear timeline.
iii) The first affidavit-cum-status report must be filed within two weeks.
iv) A second status report shall be filed on or before 31st March 2026, including details of trees planted and videography.
v) A further report shall be submitted by 20th May 2026 (or 22nd May 2026, if permitted), before the summer recess.
vi) The matter will be listed for further hearing on 31st March / 1st April 2026.
Case Title: IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA)SMW(C) No. 2/2019 PIL-W
Read Live Coverage: