SC warns of jail for officials over Kanacha Gachibowli deforestation case

The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply criticised the Telangana government over the felling of trees near the University of Hyderabad, calling the action prima facie unlawful and warning that officials could face jail time if the area is not restored.

 

A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih questioned why trees were felled taking advantage of a long weekend when the courts were not available.

 

“Prime facie, it appears that it was all pre-planned. Three days of holidays coming and you took advantage as court would not be available,” the CJI said.

 

The court took suo motu cognisance regarding deforestation activities in Kanacha Gachibowli Forest in Hyderabad. On April 3, the top court ordered a status quo until further orders. It directed the state and other relevant authorities to ensure the protection of existing trees in the forest.

 

 

On Thursday, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Telangana government, told the Supreme Court that no ongoing activity was taking place at the disputed site and assured the court that its directions would be followed in “letter and spirit”.

 

Senior advocate K Parameshwar, acting as amicus curiae, informed the court that the Forest Survey of India, using satellite imagery, had submitted a report to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) indicating that only 60 per cent of the 104-acre area where trees were felled was classified as moderately or heavily dense forest.

 

Top court’s stern warning

 

The bench firmly told the state’s counsel, “If you want to be saved from contempt, better take a decision to restore the forest.”

 

Issuing a stern warning, the bench observed, “We are putting you on guard. If you try to defend such a thing, the chief secretary and all those officers involved will be in trouble.”

 

Criticising the timing and method of the tree felling, the court said, “You should not have indulged into this. Taking advantage of a long weekend, you do all this thing.”

 

Referring to photographic evidence, the judges remarked that the authorities appeared to have mobilised dozens of bulldozers to clear the trees. The bench underlined that prior permission was required before felling trees.

 

“If you had bonafide, then why did you not start it on a Monday? Why only started it at the beginning of a long weekend?” the bench asked.

 

Singhvi responded that the state had submitted a counter affidavit and said he would address these concerns during his arguments. The court, however, made its position clear: It was the state’s decision whether it wanted its chief secretary and several officers “to be shifted to a temporary prison to be constructed at the site.”

 

‘Taking advantage of the long weekend’

 

Another lawyer involved in the case noted that if the forest is to be restored, the upcoming monsoon season would be the right time to do it. He criticised the state's response, stating, "The state’s response that they have filed, they have only tried to defend their action and they are saying they want to go forward with that IT construction." He also pointed out that the state had not submitted any formal restoration plan to the court.

 

In response, Singhvi referenced the counter affidavit and said he would attempt to convince the court that both ecological preservation and IT development could co-exist.

 

But the bench pushed back, saying, "That is another issue... we have always been advocates of sustainable development. That is not the question here. The question is, the felling of thousands of trees taking advantage of the long weekend.”

 

During the proceedings, another advocate informed the court that he had filed an application on behalf of student whistleblowers who were trying to save the forest. He mentioned that FIRs had been filed against the students even as university exams were ongoing.

 

The court responded that the students could file a separate petition to address their concerns, stating, “We are here concerned only with the protection of forest. Don’t enlarge the scope.” The matter will next be heard on July 23.  [With inputs from PTI]