What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
NEW DELHI: According to data presented in the Supreme Court, Officers tasked with protecting Delhi’s trees have granted permission to chop down over 12,000 trees in around 30 months averaging more than 12 trees a day. The apex court remarked that the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (DPTA) was intended to safeguard trees but was used instead to permit their feeling.
The court was hearing an application filed by Bhavreen Kandhari highlighting that over 60,000 trees were chopped in Delhi between 2015 and 2021. A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka suggested a tree census in Delhi. It proposed forming an expert body to oversee permissions granted by “tree officers” appointed under the Delhi Preservation Of Trees Act (DPTA), particularly for cutting more than 25-50 trees.
ALSO READ: First Ganges dolphin tagged in Assam for research
After reviewing the responses filed by the tree officers of the south, north, west, and central zones, the bench stated “The biggest failure has been in understanding that these Acts are not for cutting trees but preserving them.” Affidavits revealed that 12,052 trees were felled in the 31 months between January 2021 to August 2023. This included 3,854 trees in the south, 3,548 in the west, 2,956 in the central, and 1,694 in the north.
The court was informed that like the 1994 Act in Delhi, the states of Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh also had tree preservation laws. The bench emphasized that these laws are intended to preserve trees but not facilitate indiscriminate felling. Posting the matter for Thursday, the bench comprising Justice Manmohan, said, “We propose to pass orders on tree census as to which agency will do it. Unless there will be a proper tree census, the law cannot be effective.”
“There cannot be an indiscriminate approach for felling of trees. We will also decide on a body to vet proposals for cutting trees. Suppose there are 25 trees to be cut or say 50 trees, there will be a supervisory body. This will require the body to conduct spot visits.”
ALSO READ: Rare Wroughton’s free-tailed bat species spotted in Delhi
Senior advocates ADN Rao and Guru Krishnakumar assisting the court as amicus curiae agreed to consult the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on whether it would play the supervisory role. Krishnakumar noted that the CEC is already overworked. In another matter concerning enhancing the green cover in Delhi, the court had enlisted three experts which are former IFS officer Ishwar Singh, former principal chief conservator of forests Sunil Limaye, and environmental activist Pradeep Kishen to recommend scientific methods for increasing Delhi’s tree cover.
The court proposed assigning the tree census to the Forest Survey of India (FSI) or experts it had previously engaged such as former forest officials and environmentalists. It noted that a similar census could be ordered for the Taj Trapezium zone which is the area around the Taj Mahal to maintain ecological balance.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court calls for comprehensive policy to protect sacred groves
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati is representing the Centre and informed the bench that she had already interacted with FSI and the Indian Forest Research Institute and the agencies can conduct the census. However, she noted that under the DPTA, 1994 the job of carrying out the census falls to the Tree Authority. She suggested that the forest department’s work be supervised by any experts recommended by the court.
The bench said, “Once we create a mechanism, we can’t micromanage everything. We can ask FSI or the three experts selected by us to assist the Tree Authority.”
Appearing for Kandhari, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan stated: “Going by what is suggested, it seems the Tree Authority has done a stellar job. It has only met twice since its formation, and we have shown how they have been allowing trees to be cut in Delhi.” The court noted that while the Tree Authority had been ineffective, the goal was to establish a mechanism that fits within the legal framework, with the CEC or other experts ensuring objectivity.
