The Supreme Court in the Aarey Forest case has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs on MMRCL (Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited) saying that it was improper on the part of MMRCL to move the Tree Authority for the felling of any trees in excess of 84 trees.

The three-Judge Bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held, “It was improper on the part of MMRCL to move the Tree Authority for the felling of any trees in excess of 84 trees. If circumstances had transpired which led to a variation in the number of trees to be cut, the only correct course of action would have been to move this Court. We are, hence, of the view that it would be necessary for the Court to penalize MMRCL for its conduct. … MMRCL shall, within a period of two weeks, deposit an amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs with the Conservator of Forests.”

The Bench has modified its previous order by permitting MMRCL to act in compliance with the order dated March 15, 2023, subject to some directions.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the MMRCL, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, and Senior Advocates C.U. Singh and Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared on behalf of the respondents.

In this case, MMRCL sought a clarification of the order of the Apex Court dated November 29, 2022, whereby the MMRCL was permitted to move the Tree Authority for felling 84 trees. MMRCL submitted that 177 trees need to be felled or transplanted for the Metro Car Shed Land at Aarey Colony.

Hence, it sought to implement the permission which was granted on March 15, 2023, by the Superintendent of Gardens of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for felling 124 trees and transplanting 53 trees. The Bombay High Court in March this year had restrained MMRCL from felling 177 trees without seeking clarification from the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the aforesaid facts noted, “… it appears from the record that though initially the application was made for felling 84 trees, subsequently, a stand was adopted that actual number of trees would be in excess of what was originally envisaged. … it was well aware of the fact that the order of this Court continued to operate. MMRCL sought to justify its application for felling of trees in excess of what was permitted by the specific directions of this Court. Such an exercise was clearly not contemplated in the order of this Court.”

The Court observed that MMRCL had made an attempt to overreach the jurisdiction of the Apex Court.

“The issue which, however, needs to be considered in the application for clarification is whether permission should be granted in terms of the order which has been passed by the Superintendent of Gardens. … it has been urged before this Court that the fresh proposal which was made before the Tree Authority after the order of this Court dated 29 November 2022 was clearly not bona fide having due regard to the events which had transpired, resulting in the order of this Court”, said the Court.

The Court asserted that the issue is as to whether the permission which was granted on March 15, 2023, should be stayed by it and that any such direction will have the consequences of bringing the public project to a standstill.

“Such a course of action would not be desirable. As the Court noted in its previous order, substantial steps have already been taken by felling over 2000 trees for the purpose of the project”, said the Court.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the IA and imposed a cost on MMRCL.

Cause Title- In Re: Felling of Trees in Aarey Forest (Maharashtra)

Click here to read/download the Judgment

CJI DY ChandrachudJustice PS NarasimhaJustice JB PardiwalaAarey ForestMMRCL

Swasti Chaturvedi