MP High Court Slams State's 'Trunk' Planting, Extends Bhopal Tree Felling Ban

Bhopal, MP – The Madhya Pradesh High Court has intensified its scrutiny of the state government's environmental practices, extending a blanket ban on the felling of trees in Bhopal and castigating officials for a "transplantation" effort that involved planting mere "trunks." The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, is hearing a suo motu petition that has exposed significant procedural lapses and a disregard for ecological preservation in the name of urban development.

The court's pointed observations and stringent directives underscore a growing trend of judicial activism in environmental governance, holding state actors accountable for the ecological cost of infrastructure projects. The case, In reference (suo motu) v State [WP-42565-2025] , which originated from a news report about the unauthorized felling of 488 trees by the Public Works Department (PWD), has now expanded to question the state's entire approach to urban forestry and compensatory afforestation.

A Failed Transplantation: "Are These Transplanted Trees?"

The crux of the recent hearing on November 26 revolved around the state's claim of having transplanted a significant number of trees. The state's affidavit indicated that out of 448 trees proposed for translocation for a stadium and road widening project, 253 had already been moved. However, upon reviewing photographic evidence, the bench expressed severe disbelief and dismay.

In a sharp oral rebuke, the court questioned the very definition of the state's actions: "Are these transplanted trees? Can you call it a transplanted tree? Which of the officers certified these as transplanted trees?" This judicial censure highlights a critical failure in scientific and ecological procedure, suggesting that the state's efforts were a superficial attempt to meet a requirement without ensuring the trees' survival, leaving behind what the court described as lifeless "trunks."

This observation builds upon the court's previous assessment, where it noted that state authorities "do not appear interested in protecting or transplanting any tree but are in a rampant manner cutting and destroying the entire vegetation which is coming in the way of alleged development."

Procedural Lapses and a "Bona Fide Error"

The court's investigation revealed a consistent pattern of procedural negligence. A high-powered committee, which the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had directed the state to constitute for overseeing tree felling, was seemingly ignored. The court noted that despite the committee's formation being on record, "no permission to cut such trees was taken from the said committee." This bypass of established oversight mechanisms formed a significant part of the judicial inquiry.

In a moment of telling candor, the Deputy Advocate General representing the state conceded to the court that "some infraction has taken place in the past." He attempted to frame the violations as a "bona fide error for the purposes of infrastructural development." This admission, while acknowledging the lapse, also exposed a critical policy vacuum. The state's counsel further submitted that "there is no tree transplantation policy in the state of Madhya Pradesh which could regulate the cutting and transplantation of trees." This lack of a formal framework likely contributed to the haphazard and ultimately destructive methods employed by the PWD.

Invoking Supreme Court Precedent on the Value of a Tree

The bench firmly anchored its reasoning in established Supreme Court jurisprudence on environmental compensation. The judges reminded the state of the long-term, irreplaceable value of mature trees, which cannot be compensated for by planting saplings.

"The trees that you have cut, how many years did it take for them to grow?... What you have done is left trunks... Now, these trees will take several hundred years for them to come back to the position they were in," the court orally observed.

This line of reasoning directly references the Supreme Court's evolving doctrine on valuing natural resources. The bench explicitly mentioned a high court judgment that calculated "the cost of a tree in terms of oxygen generation." By invoking this principle, the court moved the discussion beyond mere numbers of trees felled versus planted, and into a more sophisticated analysis of the loss of ecological services. The court also reiterated the apex court's established norm for compensatory afforestation: "That is why the Supreme Court has said when you cut one tree, at least 10 trees should be planted."

The bench also extended its inquiry to the Railway Department, questioning reports of 8,000 trees being felled. While officials clarified that only 435 "non-nationalised" trees were cut (for which they claimed no permission was needed), the court's query signals a broader, more holistic examination of deforestation across various government agencies operating in the city.

Comprehensive Reporting Mandated by the Court

In light of the state's admissions and the evident failures, the High Court has refused to lift its stay on tree cutting in Bhopal without its express prior permission. Furthermore, it has issued a comprehensive directive for a detailed affidavit from the state. The respondents must now provide:

• A complete account of the number of trees already cut.
• A detailed list of trees proposed to be cut or transplanted for ongoing projects.
• The specific locations identified for transplantation.
• A concrete proposal to "restore, stock, and rehabilitate" the green cover lost.
• Details on the number, location, nature, age, and size of the new trees to be planted as part of the restoration plan.

This order effectively shifts the burden onto the state to not only account for its past actions but also to formulate a scientifically sound and legally compliant plan for future development that respects the city's ecological balance.

The case is scheduled for its next hearing on December 17, 2025, where the state's response will be critically examined. The outcome will be pivotal for setting a precedent in Madhya Pradesh on balancing infrastructural needs with environmental imperatives and will be closely watched by legal professionals and environmental advocates across the country.