Back
Stays Tree Felling in KBR
The on Monday, , granted staying all tree felling within the originally contemplated 25–35 metre surrounding Hyderabad’s Kasu Brahmananda Reddy (KBR) National Park. In the same breath, a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice on a challenging the ’s refusal to halt works connected with the Hyderabad City Innovative and Transformative Infrastructure (H-CITI) project. The apex court expressly directed that “there should be no tree felling within 25 to 35 metres around the park” and posed pointed questions on why the buffer had been reduced so sharply from the earlier proposal. The matter has been listed for further hearing on .
This order comes at a critical juncture when nearly 2,000 mature trees have already been felled or severely damaged around the park’s periphery, triggering widespread civic protests under the banner of #SaveKBR. For legal practitioners specialising in environmental and urban planning law, the development offers a timely illustration of judicial willingness to scrutinise executive decisions that dilute statutory environmental safeguards in the name of infrastructure.
Background: KBR National Park and the Evolution of Its
Kasu Brahmananda Reddy National Park, notified under , functions as one of Hyderabad’s principal green lungs within the densely populated Banjara Hills and Jubilee Hills localities. Between 2012 and 2015, the proposal under active consideration envisaged an eco-sensitive buffer of 25 to 35 metres around the park boundary, incorporating the green corridor already developed by the . The final notification issued by the on , however, fixed the zone at widths varying from a mere three metres to 29.8 metres.
The petitioner, Kaajal Maheshwari, contends that this reduction was neither premised on any scientific ecological assessment nor driven by the statutory objective of creating an ecological “shock absorber” for the protected area. Instead, the narrowing allegedly accommodated the Strategic Road Development Plan and its successor, the H-CITI project, while simultaneously avoiding the costs and delays associated with land acquisition.
The Infrastructure Project and Resulting Civic Unrest
The H-CITI project envisages construction of seven steel flyovers and seven underpasses at major junctions encircling the park, including Jubilee Hills Check Post, Film Nagar and the Indo-American Cancer Hospital stretch on Road No. 10. Originally estimated at ₹1,090 crore and later allocated ₹2,654 crore in the state budget for 2025-26, the project received tree-felling permissions under the in February 2026.
By mid-May, heavy machinery had operated through the night at multiple locations, prompting round-the-clock citizen vigils. On hundreds of residents formed human chains; between 10 and 12 May police detained at least five volunteer leaders at 3 a.m., seized mobile phones and registered FIRs for alleged obstruction of government work. Environmental activists claim that close to 2,000 trees were lost within weeks, many of them from the very green buffer that the original ESZ proposal had sought to protect.
Proceedings and Refusal of
A pending before the had highlighted unregulated construction activity and the risk of irreversible ecological damage. Rather than granting any interim stay, the High Court on adjourned the matter to 5 May and directed the petitioners to undertake research on permissible, regulated and prohibited activities within the . The refusal to grant immediate relief formed the foundation of the filed before the .
Hearing and Interim Directions
During the hearing on 18 May, , assisted by and , placed before the bench the history of the proposal dilution and the procedural irregularities that allegedly accompanied the 2020 notification. The Court recorded that more than 19,000 persons had signed petitions opposing the reduction and that these objections had not been meaningfully addressed. It further noted the petitioner’s allegation that the State had falsely represented that a public hearing had been conducted.
In response, the bench expressed reservation about the abrupt narrowing of the buffer and proceeded to pass the interim order quoted above. The directions effectively restore the protective perimeter that had been contemplated during the 2012–2015 period, pending final adjudication of the challenge to the MoEFCC notification.
Legal Analysis: Interpreting the Purpose of Eco-Sensitive Zones
The ’s intervention revives important questions about the normative content of eco-sensitive zones declared under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The statutory scheme envisions such zones as transition areas that absorb the impact of human activities on core protected habitats. A three-metre buffer in an urban setting, the petitioner argues, effectively nullifies that legislative intent and renders meaningless the Minister’s power to prescribe minimum setbacks.
Courts have previously emphasised that environmental clearances and notifications must rest on scientific data rather than expediency. The present petition tests the limits of that principle when the executive claims that infrastructure imperatives justify re-drawing boundaries originally fixed after public consultation. The ’s willingness to grant an immediate stay—despite the High Court’s contrary approach—suggests that the top court may adopt a more searching standard of review when allegations of and cost-saving motives are on record.
Procedural Fairness and Public Participation
A recurring theme in the petition is the alleged failure to consider over 19,000 public objections. Environmental jurisprudence in India has consistently recognised the right of affected citizens to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect ecological commons. If the ultimately accepts the contention that objections were not “meaningfully addressed” and that public hearings were falsely claimed, the 2020 notification itself could be vulnerable to being set aside or remanded for fresh consideration.
Such an outcome would carry significant ramifications for other urban national parks where state governments have sought to compress buffer zones to accommodate metro alignments, ring roads or real-estate developments. Lawyers advising both project proponents and citizen groups will need to track the final judgment closely for guidance on documentation standards, public-hearing protocols and the permissible weight that may be accorded to financial considerations in the delimitation exercise.
Impact on Legal Practice and Future Litigation
For environmental law practitioners, the order provides an immediate template for seeking interim protection when tree-felling permissions are granted on the strength of a contested notification. The ’s focus on the original proposal documents and the discrepancy between proposed and final boundaries may encourage litigants to file detailed comparative charts demonstrating dilution over time.
Government counsel, conversely, will need robust justification—grounded in ecological studies rather than project timelines—whenever notifications reduce previously advertised buffers. The case also underscores the continuing vitality of as a tool for urban environmental governance, even when the High Court has declined .
Conclusion: Reconciling Development and Ecological Integrity
The ’s interim order in represents more than a temporary reprieve for KBR National Park’s remaining tree cover. It signals judicial insistence that statutory environmental safeguards cannot be silently eroded through successive administrative decisions lacking transparent scientific basis. As the matter returns for final hearing on 27 July, the legal community will watch closely for a pronouncement that clarifies the interplay between infrastructure imperatives, public participation mandates and the protective purpose of eco-sensitive zones around urban national parks. Until then, the 25–35 metre protective ring remains judicially safeguarded, preserving both the ecological integrity of one of Hyderabad’s last green sanctuaries and the rule of environmental law.
