Supreme Court Provides Relief to Himachal Apple Growers by Overturning High Court Ruling

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned a High Court ruling that mandated the removal of apple orchards on encroached forest land in Himachal Pradesh. This ruling is a significant relief for local farmers who depend on apple cultivation for their livelihoods. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's directive as erroneous and warned of the severe consequences it could have on marginalized communities. The court has instructed the state government to develop a welfare proposal to assist economically weaker families involved in apple farming. This decision balances environmental concerns with the need for social justice, halting a controversial initiative that could have led to widespread tree removal.

By Narendra Chaudhary Dec 17, 2025, 11:37 IST

Supreme Court's Decision on Apple Orchards

High Court's Directive Deemed 'Erroneous'

Shimla: In a significant victory for apple farmers in Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court has annulled the High Court's order that mandated the removal of fruit-bearing orchards established on encroached forest land. The apex court recognized that such an action would have detrimental effects on marginalized families reliant on apple farming.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, criticized the High Court's ruling as 'erroneous' and cautioned against judicial overreach into policy matters. While the Supreme Court has prohibited the cutting down of fruit-bearing trees, it has allowed the state government to take legal action against forest land encroachments.

High Court's Order Could Have Severe Implications

The Supreme Court expressed concern that the High Court's directive from July 2, which required the removal of apple orchards, could adversely affect vulnerable communities. The bench emphasized that such orders should not be issued lightly, as they have significant implications for the livelihoods of marginalized groups.

The court instructed the Himachal Pradesh government to devise a welfare proposal aimed at assisting economically disadvantaged families involved in apple cultivation and to present it to the central government. This ruling came in response to petitions from the state government and local leaders challenging the High Court's decision.

Concerns Over Environmental Impact

The petitioners argued that the High Court's order, which mandated the uprooting of apple orchards in favor of forest species, was arbitrary and unconstitutional. They raised alarms about the potential ecological risks associated with large-scale tree removal during the monsoon season, which could lead to increased landslides and soil erosion in the delicate Himalayan ecosystem.

They highlighted that apple orchards play a crucial role in maintaining soil stability, supporting local biodiversity, and sustaining Himachal's rural economy. The petitioners contended that issuing sweeping orders without a thorough environmental impact assessment violated the precautionary principle and the right to livelihood as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Reactions from Growers and Farmer Organizations

Reports submitted to the court indicated that by July 18, over 3,800 apple trees had already been cut down in regions like Chaithla, Kotkhai, and Rohru, with plans to remove as many as 50,000 trees statewide, raising public alarm.

In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, Sanjay Chauhan, secretary of the Apple Growers Association, expressed relief but emphasized the ongoing struggle to secure land for disaster-affected families. Farmer leader and CPM MLA Rakesh Singha hailed the decision as a triumph for farmers and the rural poor, affirming their long-standing opposition to what they viewed as an unjust order.

Previously, Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu had voiced concerns about the removal of fruit-laden trees, advocating for sufficient time to auction the harvest. The Supreme Court's ruling effectively halts the contentious initiative, balancing environmental considerations with social justice and livelihood protection.