Back
Seeks Responses on MCGM Plea to Fell 124 Trees for Film Institute
The on Wednesday issued notice on an application filed by the (MCGM) seeking permission to fell 124 trees and translocate 333 others near the Aarey Forest area to facilitate the construction of a permanent campus for the (IICT). A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana granted two weeks to the Maharashtra government and all intervenors to file their responses, with the matter set to be heard again after the replies are submitted.
The application is the latest development in the long-running proceedings, which originated from a letter written by a law student in concerning the felling of trees for the Mumbai Metro car shed. In , the Court directed the Tree Authority not to permit any tree felling in the Aarey Colony area without its prior leave, prompting the present application as a measure of "."
A Project of ''
, appearing for the Tree Authority, argued that the proposed project is of "." He submitted that the land in question is situated within Film City and does not form part of the Aarey forest area. The project proponent—a company in which the Central government holds a 34% stake and the Maharashtra government holds 14%—has already obtained the necessary and entered into a lease agreement. Mehta further informed the Court that the project proponent has undertaken to plant 5,000 trees through the as part of .
The Tree Authority’s counsel drew a parallel to an earlier project in Goregaon for which the Court had granted permission, noting that the for that project had been duly carried out. He emphasized that the application was filed only because the order requires the Tree Authority to seek judicial approval before permitting any felling in the Aarey Colony.
Environmental Concerns and the 'Suitability' Question
Opposing the plea, , representing the NGO , questioned whether the project proponents had conducted a suitability study or explored alternative sites. She pointed to past instances where a project proponent had initially claimed that the land was not part of the forest area, only for it to later be established as forest land. Katju also raised a broader issue: should educational institutions like a film institute teaching graphic design be treated on the same footing as essential infrastructure projects such as roads and transport facilities?
"Ultimately, whether now in forest areas, whether colleges have to be built in these areas? Roads and other development projects are one thing…but now they want to build a film institute for teaching graphic designing?"
Katju submitted. She further highlighted the importance of sticking to timelines for
, noting that in previous cases, project proponents had repeatedly sought extensions from the Court.
When
, appearing for the project proponent, argued that the institute would benefit younger generations, Katju retorted that
"younger generations are also the ones who would have to deal with global warming and effects of deforestation."
Balancing Development and Ecology
CJI Surya Kant acknowledged the tension between development and environmental protection. He observed that if a project is of "
" and a reasonable plan for
is in place,
"some balance can be struck and an independent agency asked to be entrusted with the
."
Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought clarity on how the number of trees to be felled and transplanted had been determined. In response, the Tree Authority stated it had no objection to an independent assessment and suggested
,
, and the
as possible expert bodies.
The Court did not grant permission to fell any trees at this stage, instead issuing notice to all parties. The bench also briefly considered whether to transfer the entire Aarey tree-felling matter to the for ongoing supervision, but the parties informed the Court that the main case remains pending before the .
Legal Implications and Precedents
The present application underscores the evolving judicial oversight over tree felling in ecologically sensitive urban areas. The ’s order effectively created a mandatory , requiring the Tree Authority to obtain before granting any felling permissions in the Aarey Colony. This approach reflects a growing trend of courts assuming over administrative decisions with significant environmental consequences.
The Court’s willingness to consider an independent assessment of the number of trees to be felled signals that it is scrutinizing not only the legality of the project but also the adequacy of the Tree Authority’s own evaluation. The suggestion of entrusting to an independent agency, if adopted, could set a precedent for future projects requiring environmental offsets.
The case also raises the fundamental question of what constitutes a "" and whether such a designation automatically justifies the felling of trees in a forest-adjacent area. The NGO ’s challenge to the very necessity of locating a film institute near the forest highlights the ongoing debate about the limits of development in eco-sensitive zones.
What Lies Ahead
With responses due from the Maharashtra government and intervenors within two weeks, the next hearing will likely see a more detailed examination of the project’s , the availability of alternative sites, and the feasibility of the proposed plan. The Court’s final decision could have far-reaching implications for urban development projects in Mumbai and beyond, particularly those that encroach upon green cover.
As the matter awaits its next date, the balance between fostering creative industries and preserving the last remaining green lungs of India’s financial capital remains precarious. The ’s role as the ultimate arbiter in this tension will be closely watched by environmental lawyers, urban planners, and the legal community at large.
