Supreme Court Slams Maharashtra Over Poor Compensatory Afforestation in Aarey Forest
1. Background of the Case
The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, has severely criticised the Maharashtra Government for its poor record in carrying out compensatory afforestation in the Aarey region.
The issue came up during the hearing of an application filed by the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) seeking permission to cut trees for the Goregaon–Mulund Link Road (GMLR) project, a tunnel connecting Filmcity in Goregaon with Khindipada in Mulund.
An inspection report presented by Anitta Patil, Director of Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), revealed that out of 20,460 saplings planted as compensatory afforestation, only 50% survived. Most surviving trees were poorly maintained, with stunted growth, low height, and little ecological recovery due to lack of maintenance, poor soil conditions, water scarcity, and grazing.
2. Supreme Court’s Observations
The bench comprising CJI Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran expressed sharp disapproval of the State’s lax attitude, stating:
“If this is your conduct and your concern for the environment, we will recall all permissions that we have granted.”
The Court noted that despite its previous directions issued in 2019 and 2023 to maintain and report on afforestation efforts, the State had failed to comply.
The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra to submit a concrete proposal by November 10 for effective management, monitoring, and survival of planted trees, warning that the permissions granted for tree felling may be withdrawn if the government continues to display negligence.
3. Facts and Reports Presented
-
Saplings Planted: 20,460 (under Compensatory Afforestation and CSR Plantation Schemes funded by MMRCL)
-
Survival Rate: Approximately 50%
-
Condition: Irregular growth, mostly 1–2 feet in height
-
Causes: Lack of maintenance, water scarcity, absence of fencing, unsuitable site selection
-
Additional Findings:
-
Damaged irrigation pipeline system
-
Missing plantation at recorded sites (as per Collector’s random sampling report)
-
IIT-Bombay’s 2023 report suggested replanting 3,500 saplings to compensate for losses
-
The Forest Department report (October 15, 2025) confirmed these findings and recommended that strict monitoring, fencing, and long-term maintenance be implemented to ensure sustainability.
4. Legal Framework: Statutory Provisions Involved
(a) Compensatory Afforestation under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
-
Section 2: Restricts de-reservation or use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval of the Central Government.
-
Compensatory Afforestation Scheme (MoEF Guidelines, 2009): Mandates reforestation equal to or double the area of diverted forest land.
The MMRCL was obligated under these provisions to ensure compensatory afforestation was effectively carried out, monitored, and reported.
(b) Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975
-
Section 8(2): Requires permission from the Tree Authority for felling trees in urban areas.
-
Section 21: Obligates the authority to undertake compensatory plantation.
-
Geo-Tagging Requirement: As per 2025 court orders, Maharashtra was directed to geo-tag all transplanted and newly planted trees to track survival and maintenance.
The failure to maintain plantation sites and misrepresentation of data amount to non-compliance with statutory obligations under this Act.
(c) Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986
-
Section 3 & 5 empower the Central Government to take necessary measures to protect and improve environmental quality, including issuing directions for restoration and compensation for ecological damage.
-
The Supreme Court’s environmental jurisdiction derives from its authority to ensure compliance with these statutory duties through Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution.
5. Constitutional Provisions Implicated
| Article | Provision | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Article 48A | Directive Principle – State shall protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. | Mandates government accountability for ecological degradation. |
| Article 51A(g) | Fundamental Duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. | Reinforces civic and institutional responsibility in environmental management. |
| Article 21 | Right to life includes the right to a healthy environment. | Expanded through judicial interpretation. |
| Article 32 | Citizens can directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. | Enables PILs and suo motu actions on environmental issues. |
The Aarey Forest case falls squarely within this constitutional framework, where the State’s failure in maintaining compensatory afforestation violates Article 21’s guarantee of a clean and healthy environment.
6. Judicial Precedents Relevant to the Case
(i) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987, AIR 965)
The Supreme Court held that environmental protection is part of Article 21, recognising the right to live in a pollution-free environment.
(ii) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997)
The Court developed the principle of sustainable development and directed mandatory compensatory afforestation for diversion of forest land. The Aarey case directly mirrors these obligations.
(iii) Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
This landmark case introduced the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle, holding that failure to maintain ecological balance invites judicial scrutiny.
(iv) N.D. Jayal v. Union of India (2004)
The Court emphasised that development cannot override environmental sustainability, reiterating the need for long-term ecological consideration before granting clearance for projects.
7. The Issue of Sincerity and Sustainable Development
The Supreme Court bench stressed that development and environmental preservation are not opposing forces, but must be balanced responsibly.
CJI Gavai noted that while projects like the Goregaon–Mulund Link Road are critical for infrastructure, granting permissions for tree felling must come with an obligation for genuine and verifiable afforestation, not symbolic compliance.
The Court’s warning — “We will recall all permissions granted” — signals a strong shift toward accountability-driven environmental governance.
8. Conclusion
The Aarey compensatory afforestation failure underscores a critical gap between policy and implementation. Planting saplings alone does not constitute afforestation; ensuring their survival, growth, and ecological integration does.
The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a reminder that environmental governance requires transparency, sincerity, and scientific monitoring. As India continues to urbanise, the challenge lies in balancing infrastructure growth with ecological integrity.
In essence, sustainable development is not an optional policy — it is a constitutional mandate.

Comments
Post a Comment