Illegal Tree Felling Under Lens: Supreme Court Puts Centre, 4 States on Notice Amid Floods
Supreme Court on Thursday took suo motu cognisance of rampant illegal tree felling in the Himalayan belt amid relentless floods across north India, issuing notices to the Union government and the states of Punjab, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran underscored the need to reconcile development with environmental safeguards, observing that statutory protections were being openly flouted.
“We have seen unprecedented rains and flooding. Prima facie, it appears that illegal felling of trees has taken place,” Chief Justice Gavai said, calling it “a very serious issue.” The court noted visuals of large wooden blocks floating in swollen rivers and asked the Solicitor General to obtain instructions, directing the Centre to file its response within three weeks.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked, “Unfortunately, we have played with nature too much… now it is hitting back,” capturing the gravity of the crisis as extreme monsoon conditions pummel the region. The bench flagged reports that “entire fields and villages in Punjab seem to have been wiped out by floods,” reiterating that ecological prudence must be integral to infrastructure and land-use decisions.
The court’s intervention comes at a time when the Himalayas ecologically fragile and densely populated are witnessing cascading disasters from cloudbursts, landslides, and riverine surges, amplifying the suspected role of deforestation, quarrying, and unregulated construction in exacerbating slope instability and flood risks.
Himachal Pradesh has borne the brunt of the season’s fury, recording its wettest August since 1949 and reporting a deadly mix of landslides and subsidence that buried homes, crippled transport corridors, and left more than 340 people dead with others missing. Uttarakhand has faced a similar pattern of flash floods and landslips, with major rivers—the Ganga, Alaknanda, and Mandakini—swollen to or beyond danger levels and the human toll already exceeding 80.
In Jammu and Kashmir, successive cloudbursts have triggered flash floods and road closures across Ramban and Reasi, repeatedly disrupting movement and forcing suspensions of the Vaishno Devi pilgrimage. Punjab has declared the floods a state disaster, with more than 1,400 villages inundated, over 3.7 lakh acres of farmland submerged, and upwards of 3.5 lakh residents affected—damage that has devastated the agrarian economy at the cusp of the harvest cycle.
Delhi continues to grapple with urban flooding and waterlogging as the Yamuna, swollen by heavy discharge from Haryana’s Hathnikund barrage, breached danger levels, flooding low-lying neighbourhoods and forcing evacuations and closures of key infrastructure, including the Old Railway Bridge.
Experts say the combination of an unusually intense, prolonged monsoon and chronic stressors—encroached floodplains, silted river channels, degraded forests, and overloaded hill roads—has compounded vulnerabilities. The court’s focus on illegal felling goes to the heart of these systemic risks: forests act as natural sponges and slope stabilisers, their loss heightening runoff, erosion, and debris flows that transform heavy rain into deadly torrents.
The notices signal potential judicial scrutiny of compliance with forest and environmental laws, afforestation targets, and state-level clearances in sensitive zones. They may also invite a time-bound plan from governments to curb illegal logging, enhance catchment treatment, and restore floodplains.
The bench’s insistence on balancing development with environmental protection suggests closer oversight of road-widening, hydropower, and tourism-linked projects in the hills, where cumulative impacts often go unaccounted. For the plains, the court’s observations could catalyse river-basin scale action on desilting, embankment maintenance, and early warning systems—measures long recommended but unevenly implemented.
With three weeks for the Centre’s response, the matter sets the stage for broader accountability on climate resilience. If the court leans toward enforceable directives—such as independent audits of felling hotspots, satellite-based monitoring of forest cover, and coordinated floodplain management—state agencies may face tighter timelines and public reporting mandates.
For millions in flood-hit districts, however, the immediate concern remains relief and rehabilitation. The court’s intervention, by spotlighting root causes, may help shift the policy conversation from reactive disaster relief to preventive ecological stewardship—an approach that could save lives and livelihoods as extreme weather episodes grow more frequent and severe.
