Chandigarh, January 22: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a poignant reminder of inter-generational responsibility during a hearing on tree felling, asking the state and stakeholders if they wanted their descendants to breathe fresh air.
The bench maintained its previous order which prohibits the removal of any tree species across Punjab without express judicial permission. This stance comes as the court reviews public interest litigations challenging the removal of greenery for various infrastructure projects, including a shopping mall in Mohali.
The court directed authorities to provide specific details regarding the environmental impact of ongoing works. “Point out which are the heritage trees to be cut,” Chief Justice Nagu directed.
Addressing the tension between urban growth and conservation, the Chief Justice noted that construction activities could wait while the environment required immediate restraint. The bench indicated that felling should only be permitted in the rarest of cases, suggesting that commercial ventures like shopping malls do not meet that threshold.
The Punjab government and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) requested the court to vacate the stay order issued in late December. Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi argued that approximately eleven projects are currently stalled despite having prior approvals.
He cited safety concerns, mentioning that road projects need to move forward to prevent accidents. “Permission had been given,” Bedi stated, requesting the court to allow work where clearances were already in place.
NHAI counsel specifically sought relief for the
Abohar-Fazilka road, describing it as a “defence road of extreme national importance.”
The counsel informed the court that 75 percent of the project is finished and 15 crore rupees has been spent on compensatory afforestation. Despite these arguments, the court remained focused on the state’s limited green cover.
Statistics presented during the hearing showed that Punjab’s forest and tree cover stands at just 5.92 percent, significantly lower than the national average of 25.17 per cent.
The proceedings concluded with the court seeking a clearer delineation of which trees are marked for removal.
The state’s policy currently aims to increase its green cover to 7.5 percent by 2030, a goal the court appears keen to protect. The hearing is scheduled to continue Friday morning to further deliberate on the balance between national infrastructure needs and ecological preservation.
