Introduction
In a significant environmental and governance-related development, the Supreme Court of India has issued notices to multiple authorities of the State of Haryana for allegedly felling over 40 trees to provide road access to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s newly constructed office in Sector 9, Karnal. The top court has ordered status quo on the ongoing construction and directed the concerned officials to personally appear and justify the alleged violations.
The order, passed by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, reflects the Supreme Court’s increasing judicial vigilance over unauthorized tree cutting and encroachments on designated green belts in urban areas.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when Col. Davinder Singh Rajput, the petitioner, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the decision of the Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) to allot a green-belt plot situated between two residential houses to the BJP.
According to the petitioner, the site in question forms part of the green belt adjoining the GT Road, earmarked for environmental and residential balance. The petitioner alleged that the authorities, under the pretext of “development,” were carving out a road from the green belt to give direct access to the BJP’s office, in clear violation of town planning and environmental norms.
When the High Court dismissed the petition, the aggrieved petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 through a Special Leave Petition (SLP), seeking intervention against what he described as an arbitrary and politically motivated misuse of public land and environmental resources.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Taking serious note of the allegations, the Supreme Court Bench issued notices to the following authorities:
- Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP)
- Haryana Department of Forests
- Karnal Municipal Corporation
- Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
The Court directed that the Chief Administrator of the HSVP must personally appear before it with the entire record of the project and explain the circumstances under which more than 40 trees were felled.
The Court’s Remark:
“On the next date of hearing, the Chief Administrator of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran shall remain personally present before this Court with the entire record. He shall explain in what circumstances 40 plus trees were felled in the name of development. We would like to know what has the respondent no.2 (HSVP) done with the trees which were felled. If any further development is undertaken from now onwards, we shall take a very strict view of the matter.”
The Supreme Court’s direction for maintaining “status quo” ensures that no further construction, road widening, or tree felling can be carried out until the next hearing on November 26, 2025.
High Court’s Findings
Before the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed the petitioner’s plea. The Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur held that the site was allotted after following due procedure, including inviting applications from political parties.
The High Court had observed that:
- The layout plan was approved by the competent authorities, including the Department of Environment.
- The felling of trees from the green belt was carried out after obtaining requisite permission from the Forest and Environment Department.
- The road access was justified on grounds of public convenience, including easing traffic congestion on the GT Road.
Despite these findings, the petitioner alleged that the decision-making process lacked transparency and violated the core purpose of maintaining urban green zones meant to mitigate pollution and provide ecological balance in residential areas.
Arguments Presented Before the Supreme Court
Petitioner’s Contentions:
- The green belt is a protected environmental buffer zone and cannot be converted into a road or used for non-residential purposes.
- The allotment to a political party, especially between residential houses, amounts to preferential treatment and abuse of administrative discretion.
- The felling of 40+ trees directly contradicts constitutional and statutory mandates for environmental protection, including Article 48A (Directive Principles of State Policy) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty to protect the environment).
Respondents’ Defense:
The counsel representing the Haryana authorities contended that:
- The site was duly allotted following a transparent process involving multiple clearances.
- The road access was developed to resolve traffic congestion issues, benefiting the public at large and not solely the political office.
- All environmental permissions were obtained before felling any trees.
However, the Supreme Court was not satisfied with these explanations at the preliminary stage and sought personal accountability from the administrative head of HSVP.
Legal and Environmental Significance
This case holds major implications in three areas — environmental jurisprudence, urban governance, and political accountability.
- Environmental Protection and Urban Green Belts
The Supreme Court’s intervention reaffirms the importance of protecting green belts and tree cover in urban planning. Such areas are crucial for maintaining ecological balance and controlling air pollution, particularly in rapidly urbanizing regions like Haryana. - Accountability of Urban Development Authorities
The direction summoning the Chief Administrator of HSVP highlights the Court’s intent to ensure personal responsibility in cases of environmental violations, discouraging bureaucratic complacency. - Transparency in Allotment to Political Parties
The case raises ethical questions about the preferential allotment of public land to political entities, especially when it involves environmental compromise. It reopens the debate on neutral and transparent land allocation policies.
Broader Judicial Context
The Supreme Court has, in multiple judgments, emphasized that tree felling for development projects must be balanced with ecological considerations. Some relevant precedents include:
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) – where the Court expanded the definition of “forest” and regulated tree cutting.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Tree Felling in Delhi, 2002) – where the Court underscored that environmental degradation cannot be justified under the guise of development.
- Kancha Gachibowli Tree Felling Case (2024) – where the Court restrained municipal authorities from felling trees in Hyderabad’s green zones for road widening.
The present case aligns with this judicial trend of strict environmental scrutiny in urban infrastructure projects.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order in Col. Davinder Singh Rajput v. State of Haryana & Ors. is a timely reminder that development cannot come at the cost of environmental destruction. By summoning the Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran and directing status quo, the Court has once again placed environmental accountability at the forefront of public administration.
As the case proceeds on November 26, 2025, it will be crucial to see whether the Haryana authorities can justify their actions — or whether this becomes yet another example of environmental degradation under political influence.
Also Read
Bombay High Court Appoints High Powered Committee to Protect Sanjay Gandhi National Park
