Subscribe
Madras High Court orders complete removal of invasive Prosopis juliflora across Tamil Nadu, criticising years of inaction
District Collectors tasked with leading a statewide “combing operation” to eradicate the species before the monsoon
Supreme Court declines to intervene in plea over mercury leakage risks from Bhopal waste, directs petitioner to High Court
Apex court dismisses PIL against Vantara wildlife facility, upholds findings of no legal violations
Courts underline need for stronger execution of environmental and regulatory safeguards
The Madras High Court on March 18, 2026 issued a series of directions for the effective removal of the invasive species Prosopis juliflora across Tamil Nadu.
The court directed that the Tamil Nadu Policy on Invasive Plants and Ecological Restoration (TNPIPER) be implemented, and that Prosopis juliflora, in all its forms including trees, plants and roots be mechanically uprooted, removed and disposed of from all locations. Wherever feasible, native species are to be planted, nurtured and grown under a project titled Sezhumai Karuvoolam.
District Collectors have been designated as the central authority responsible for removing the species and preventing its regrowth. This includes ensuring mechanical removal from both private and public lands, as well as planting native species on all public land within their districts.
Private landowners have been directed to uproot and remove Prosopis juliflora from their land within 30 days of the order.
The court also ordered the appointment of a Special Committee comprising two retired Madras High Court judges, Justice A Selvam and Justice V Bharathidasan, to oversee the eradication process within a specified timeframe. Justice Selvam will supervise action in the southern districts under the Madurai Bench, while Justice Bharathidasan will oversee the northern districts under the Principal Bench.
The court stressed that all efforts should be made to complete removal before the onset of the next monsoon, allowing native species to be planted and established during the rains.
The bench observed that the scale and importance of the issue had not been properly understood at the execution level. Despite repeated orders, authorities had failed to take adequate action. Expressing dissatisfaction with two reports submitted by authorities, the court highlighted what it described as “very glaring points”.
First, authorities had failed to recognise that removal of the invasive species could generate revenue. By identifying affected plots and auctioning removal rights, successful bidders could both clear the trees at their own expense and pay the government for the wood obtained. Instead, government departments, including Revenue and Rural Development, were proposing to spend public funds on removal, the court observed.
Second, the court noted that earlier directions to declare at least one village per month free of Prosopis juliflora had not been properly implemented. Reports submitted were described as “hollow”, with removal limited to panchayat-controlled lands in only some areas. The court observed that such lands constitute only a small proportion of total land, and even there, removal had not been complete.
The bench emphasised that the exercise should be carried out as a “combing operation”, with coordinated local-level action. It called for simultaneous public awareness efforts led by District Collectors, Block Development Officers, and panchayat-level officials.
The 58-page order also outlined a series of earlier directions issued by the court over the past decade for the removal of Seemai Karuvelam (the Tamil name for Prosopis juliflora). In January 2014, the court directed authorities to remove the trees from river bodies, including the Vaigai river and other water bodies, on a war footing.
In August 2015, it ordered the formulation of a comprehensive scheme for removal, including root systems, and directed that it be implemented by September that year, with adequate funding. In February 2017, authorities were instructed to remove the species across Tamil Nadu within 15 days and to enact legislation with prohibitory and penal provisions within two months.
Further directions in February and March 2022 called for a state-wide removal scheme under the supervision of District Collectors, and suggested learning from models in Rajasthan and Odisha, where contractors were engaged for removal work.
The court also directed that cleared land be maintained for two to three years to prevent regrowth and ensure the successful planting of native species.
“Normally, the Court decides the issue and passes orders, and it is left to the executive to comply,” the bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed. “In this case, 11 years have passed… and there has been no substantial progress.”
The Supreme Court on March 16, 2026 declined to intervene in a plea raising concerns about possible land and groundwater contamination due to mercury leakage from incinerated waste linked to the Bhopal gas tragedy.
The case relates to the disposal of hazardous waste and residual ash generated after incinerating toxic material from the Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) site in Bhopal.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has been monitoring the matter through a public interest litigation for over two decades, issuing directions to prevent soil and groundwater contamination in and around the site. The residual ash has been disposed of at a treatment, storage and disposal facility in Pithampur, in Dhar district.
The petitioner, citing a report by Asif Qureshi of IIT Hyderabad, raised concerns that the ash contains significant quantities of mercury, which could potentially leak and contaminate groundwater and the surrounding environment.
However, the Supreme Court noted that the disposal had likely been carried out following precautionary measures based on expert recommendations. It said there was no reason to interfere with the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order of December 10 2025.
The court advised the petitioner to approach the High Court with supporting material if concerns about future leakage persist. It also directed the High Court to consider such applications on their merits in the larger public interest.
The Supreme Court on March 9, 2026 dismissed a public interest litigation alleging wildlife trade violations at Vantara, the wildlife rescue and conservation facility operated by Reliance Foundation in Jamnagar.
The court rejected the plea seeking an investigation into wildlife imports at the facility and upheld the findings of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), which had found no violations of domestic or international law.
The SIT’s final report, accepted by the court in September 2025, concluded that all imports were carried out with the required permissions.
The court also referred to documentation from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), noting that it found no evidence of unauthorised imports or commercial misuse. It further observed that once imports are made with valid permissions, they cannot later be deemed illegal simply because objections are raised subsequently.
The bench added that disturbing the existing environment, custody and living conditions of animals including rescued animals after lawful import could itself amount to cruelty.