synopsis

Expressing concern over environmental damage in Telangana, SC directed the state to submit a comprehensive restoration plan for the degraded area. The bench emphasised state cannot allow “indiscriminate destruction” in ecologically sensitive zones.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Telangana government over the large-scale felling of trees on 100 acres of land adjacent to the University of Hyderabad campus. 

The bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, expressed alarm over the environmental degradation caused by the clearance and questioned the urgency with which the state moved to axe hundreds of trees.

“We are surprised and disturbed to see videos where animals are running for shelter,” the court observed, citing visual evidence that captured the displacement of wildlife from the cleared forested area. The bench said such footage highlighted the grave ecological impact of the deforestation, especially in an urban zone that supports significant biodiversity.

The court criticised the Telangana government for its “tearing hurry” in undertaking the felling, and asked whether due process and environmental clearances were followed before initiating the clearance drive. “You cannot allow indiscriminate destruction in an ecologically sensitive zone under the guise of development,” the bench said, warning that long-term damage to the environment cannot be justified by short-term goals.

Directing the state government to submit a comprehensive restoration and rehabilitation plan, the court emphasised the need to mitigate the ecological fallout. It instructed Telangana to prepare a roadmap for restoring the degraded land and for rewilding the affected zone to support displaced flora and fauna.

The issue came to light after a public interest petition flagged the mass tree felling near the university campus, sparking widespread concern among environmentalists and students.

The case will next be heard in the coming weeks, by which time the state is expected to file a detailed affidavit outlining its restoration commitments. The court made it clear that accountability must be fixed, and any violation of environmental laws would not be taken lightly.