The Supreme Court declined to halt tree felling for Ahmedabad’s riverfront project, observing that development must balance environmental concerns. The Court upheld the NGT’s findings and noted planned compensatory afforestation measures.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to halt tree-felling activities undertaken for the second phase of the Ahmedabad riverfront development project, observing that environmental protection cannot be treated as an absolute bar on infrastructure growth.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a challenge to the cutting of thousands of trees in Hansol village, Ahmedabad.
The petitioner, a resident, alleged that a dense forest ecosystem had been destroyed without exploring alternative development plans. It was argued that the trees had been growing for decades and were home to wildlife, making their removal irreversible.
However, the Court noted that expert assessments showed the vegetation consisted largely of wild, non-protected growth, which did not require specialised intervention for regeneration.
“Development and environment have to go hand in hand,”
CJI Surya Kant observed, stressing that ecological concerns must be balanced with public interest projects.
The Bench endorsed the earlier findings of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Pune, which had refused to stop the felling in December 2025. The Tribunal had recorded that the trees in question were gando baval, a species not classified as protected, and were located on non-forest land.
The NGT had also dismissed claims that the land was ecologically sensitive, paving the way for the continuation of the project.
Reiterating objections, counsel for the petitioner argued that nearly 4,000 fully grown trees had been removed, calling the exercise a destruction of a “ready-made forest”.
The lawyer questioned the reliance on administrative notifications and alleged that authorities failed to consider alternatives that could have preserved the green cover.
The Bench, however, remained unconvinced, pointing out that wild vegetation is capable of natural regeneration and that successful afforestation efforts across the country demonstrate how environmental loss can be mitigated.
Referring to infrastructure requirements, the Court noted that facilities such as helipads serve emergency purposes and cannot be equated with nearby airports.
The Chief Justice remarked that developmental projects often require difficult trade-offs, provided safeguards are put in place.
Crucially, the Court took note of the State’s assurance that double compensatory plantation would be undertaken to offset the loss of trees.
Emphasising that the area was not a notified forest, the Bench held that no grounds were made out for judicial interference.
While disposing of the plea, the Supreme Court directed the National Green Tribunal to constitute a committee to identify suitable land for compensatory afforestation, ensuring that environmental restoration accompanies the development project.
Case Title:
Firdos Cambatta vs State of Gujarat
Read More Reports On Tree-Felling
