Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Haryana's 'Ecological Apathy', Imposes Blanket Ban on Tree Cutting

In a stinging rebuke to environmental inaction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a statewide prohibition on felling any trees in Haryana without its prior permission. The order, passed in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Sunil Kumar Sharma and others against the Union of India and others, specifically targets the proposed cutting of around 5,000 trees for the Zirakpur-Panchkula bypass project by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry made the interim directive on April 1, 2026, with the next hearing set for April 17, 2026.

The Bypass That Sparked a Forest Firestorm

The PIL challenges the NHAI's plan to construct a new bypass linking Zirakpur and Panchkula, which requires clearing approximately 5,000 trees. Petitioners highlighted Haryana's alarmingly low forest cover— just 3.65% of its geographical area , as per the Indian State Forest Report 2023 (Annexure P-10). This backdrop framed the court's concerns over whether states like Punjab and Haryana were prepared to offer nearby public land for compensatory afforestation, a standard mitigation for such projects.

The dispute escalated when the court posed a direct query to NHAI's counsel: Were Punjab and Haryana ready to provide land in close vicinity for afforestation in lieu of the trees? The lack of an immediate response underscored deeper issues of preparedness and alternative planning.

NHAI's Silence, Petitioners' Alarm

Petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Anand Chhibbar and team, argued that Haryana's functionaries showed a cavalier attitude toward an "impending ecological catastrophe." They submitted annexures, including the forest report, to emphasize the state's precarious green cover and urged judicial intervention to prevent irreversible damage.

NHAI's counsel, Advocate Rishi Kaushal, had no ready answer to the afforestation query and sought time for instructions. The court also pressed for details on all re-alignment proposals from NHAI's technical team, probing whether alternatives to the tree-heavy route had been genuinely considered. NHAI assured no trees would be cut pending further orders, a commitment echoed in post-hearing reports.

Representatives from the Union of India, Punjab, Haryana, and other respondents were present but offered no counter on the core ecological query.

Why the Court Stepped In: No Room for complacency

The bench's reasoning hinged on Haryana's dismal forest statistics and the authorities' apparent unawareness of environmental imperatives. No precedents were cited, but the court drew on the PIL's urgency to invoke its powers under Article 226 for environmental protection. It distinguished this from routine infrastructure approvals by stressing the need for applied minds in assessing alternatives like route realignments—information NHAI must now file.

Media summaries noted the court's frustration with the "failure of authorities to respond," integrating observations that such inaction demands "drastic remedial measures." This aligns with the judgment's call for accountability in projects threatening fragile ecosystems.

Key Observations

"This Court put a pointed query to learned counsel for respondent No.2 – NHAI as to whether the States of Punjab and Haryana are ready and willing to give public land in close vicinity for afforestation in lieu of 5000 trees proposed to be cut..."

"...it appears that the functionaries of the State of Haryana are neither serious nor they seem conscious of the impending ecological catastrophe."

"In view of above, inactivity of the respondents requires drastic remedial measures by this Court."

"Accordingly, this Court prohibits the cutting of any tree of any age/specie in the State of Haryana... without permission of this Court, till the next date of hearing."

A Sweeping Stay with Far-Reaching Echoes

The final order is unequivocal: No tree—of any age or species—may be cut in Haryana, including the 5,000 for the bypass, without court approval until April 17, 2026. NHAI must submit re-alignment proposals, enabling scrutiny of less destructive options.

This interim blanket ban could reshape infrastructure-environment balances in low-forest states, compelling authorities to prioritize afforestation land banks and alternative routings upfront. For Haryana, it signals judicial oversight on green clearances amid national pushes for highway expansion. As reports in English and Hindi media amplify, the ruling spotlights a nationwide tension: progress versus preservation.