Subscribe
On August 5, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) mandated that any public authority requesting permission from the highest court to cut trees for public projects must strive to minimise the number of trees to be felled by 'reassessing the alignment of the public project'.
The highest court issued the directive 'considering the essence of Article 51A of the Indian Constitution and the citizens' right to a healthy environment.'
On August 5, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that Uttar Pradesh had requested permission to cut down 3,874 trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone for the Agra-Jalesar-Etah road project.
However, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) report indicated that only 2,818 trees need to be felled, and 229 trees should be translocated.
Before granting permission based on the CEC's recommendation, the Uttar Pradesh government must take several steps, including planting 38,740 plants as suggested by the CEC, according to the SC.
The apex court ordered that a copy of the application and the CEC report be given to the Additional Solicitor General representing Uttar Pradesh in other cases. To allow Uttar Pradesh to respond, the application should be scheduled for September 6, 2024.
On August 5, 2024, the Supreme Court instructed that the vision document created by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for the protection of the Taj Mahal, along with the comments from the state of Uttar Pradesh and the ASI's affidavit concerning the vision plan, be sent to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
The SC allowed the CEC two months to provide feedback and recommendations.
The SC August 5 set aside the order passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) directing Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) to pay an interim compensation of Rs 5 crore for building roads in Ennore wetlands.
The SC said that there must be a detailed scrutiny of the reports submitted by the various authorities and institutions. While holding that NGT had not examined the matter in detail, the court directed that the affidavits / status report filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board also need to be closely scrutinised.
The Supreme Court overruled the National Green Tribunal's directive, stating that 'the challenged order should be considered as an interim order.' The order explained, "This is necessary as we are not disputing the Tribunal's conclusions but are instructing it to conduct a thorough and detailed examination of the facts."
The Supreme Court instructed NGT to thoroughly investigate the issue from all angles after allowing all parties to present their case. Meanwhile, the order to pay Rs 5 crore as interim compensation was revoked until the original application is resolved.