Supreme Court Petition Filed Against Apple Tree Removal in Himachal Pradesh
Legal Challenge to Tree Removal Order
New Delhi/Shimla:
Former Deputy Mayor of Shimla and CPM member Tikender Singh Panwar has approached the Supreme Court to contest a recent directive from the Himachal Pradesh High Court that mandates the removal of apple trees from encroached forest land.
The petition highlights significant environmental, economic, and constitutional issues regarding the indiscriminate clearance of fruit-bearing trees throughout the state.
Panwar, alongside advocate and activist Rajiv Rai, contends that the High Court's order from July 2, which instructs the forest department to uproot apple trees and replace them with native forest species, was issued without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The petition argues that this decision disregards ecological implications and violates established environmental and constitutional principles.
Impact of Tree Removal
Thousands of Trees Already Cut Down
The petitioners reported that approximately 4,000 apple trees have already been felled in regions like Chaithla, Kotgarh, and Rohru within Shimla district. According to state records, nearly 50,000 additional trees may be at risk if the order is fully executed. The plea emphasizes that these orchards are vital not only for local income but also for maintaining soil health, preventing erosion, and supporting local ecosystems.
The timing of this operation has been criticized, as the risk of landslides and erosion during the monsoon season is heightened by such extensive tree removal in ecologically sensitive areas. The petition asserts that the decision violates judicial precedents that necessitate environmental assessments before undertaking projects with potential ecological impacts.
Constitutional Rights at Stake
Order Challenged for Violating Rights
Tikender Panwar argues that the High Court's ruling infringes upon the right to livelihood as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition describes the directive as 'arbitrary and disproportionate,' claiming it fails to adhere to the standards of reasonableness and proportionality established by the Supreme Court in previous rulings, including the TN Godavarman Thirumulpad and Coimbatore Cooperative Bank cases.
The petition advocates for more sustainable alternatives to tree removal, such as acquiring orchards for public use, auctioning fruit and timber, or incorporating the produce into cooperative or disaster relief initiatives, all aimed at safeguarding both livelihoods and the environment.