Delhi High Court Issues Fresh Directions On Tree Felling | Trees Are Living Entities Of Hope Sanity And Environmental Redemption | Directs Project Proponents To Maintain Transplanted Trees For 5 Years
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that the standard operating procedure (SOP) for felling and transplantation of trees must be implemented in letter, spirit, and intent. The Court directed that the Department of Forest and designated Tree Officers be mandatorily involved at the initial planning stage of any infrastructure project likely to impact trees. Additional conditions were imposed regarding compensatory plantation standards and post-approval compliance. The Court further ruled that applications for tree felling must include affidavits by applicants undertaking long-term upkeep of compensatory trees.
A contempt petition was filed alleging violations of the Delhi High Court’s prior directions dated 28 April 2022, wherein permissions had been granted by Tree Officers for felling trees without adherence to statutory obligations under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 (DPTA). The primary allegation concerned the systematic disregard of the directive that “preservation of trees is the primary objective.”
The contempt proceedings were initiated against the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and three Tree Officers, asserting that despite explicit judicial orders mandating cautious and reasoned approval processes, permissions continued to be issued without necessary assessment, leading to indiscriminate deforestation in Delhi. The earlier judicial directive had specifically required Tree Officers to conduct site inspections and evaluate transplantation possibilities before granting any tree felling permission.
In parallel, orders were passed in related writ proceedings, particularly W.P.(C) 10217/2022, where the Court observed prima facie violations of environmental norms by tree felling near construction sites. The Deputy Conservator of Forest had also issued instructions in October 2021 to address the indiscriminate cutting of trees and stressed that permissions be granted only after evaluating the environmental consequences.
On 6 March 2024, the Court directed the formulation of an SOP addressing pre-construction permissions where tree felling was involved, emphasizing coordination between project planning authorities and the Department of Forest to explore tree-saving measures.
The SOP was subsequently formalized via Gazette Notification dated 24 April 2025. Amicus curiae and the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) submitted that the SOP aligns with the intent of the DPTA. Further recommendations by the amici included stipulations on minimum standards for compensatory plantations and mandatory affidavits from applicants undertaking to maintain planted trees.
The ASG referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664, to clarify the limits of judicial review over policy decisions, asserting that the judiciary cannot interfere with executive policymaking unless fundamental rights or legal mandates are violated.
The Court also considered observations in Vanashakti v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 718, wherein the Supreme Court had stated that environmental protection is integral to the right to life under Article 21. The apex court had condemned any governmental actions or omissions undermining environmental safety and recorded that development could not occur at the expense of ecological degradation.
In the present case, the Delhi High Court clarified that it was not interfering with executive policy but was enforcing judicial directions to uphold Article 21 protections. The Court noted that the power under Article 215 of the Constitution enables High Courts, as courts of record, to enforce their orders beyond the procedural scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The judgments in Pritam Pal v. High Court of M.P. and T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. were cited to reinforce this position, emphasizing the judiciary’s power to ensure implementation of its mandates through inherent constitutional authority.
The Court distinguished between executive policymaking and judicially mandated frameworks essential for protecting citizens' constitutional rights. It pinpointed that the aim of the SOP was environmental protection and judicial accountability—not executive overreach.
The judgment noted that the preservation of trees must be treated as the primary objective under the applicable legal framework. It recorded that the Tree Officer serves as a repository of public faith and trust, with a responsibility to ensure that trees—being integral to the lives of people—are not cut unnecessarily or without justification.
The Court stated that a shortage of Tree Officers or support staff cannot be cited as a valid reason for allowing the felling of trees in the city.
It observed that even where compensatory afforestation is undertaken, it offers little real or effective replacement for the loss incurred.
Referring to the unique context of the national capital, the Court described trees as essential, living entities that provide hope, stability, environmental relief, and even companionship amid a rapidly growing population.
In this setting, the judgment stated, the significance of a solitary tree is amplified, thereby placing an even greater duty on the Tree Officer and relevant authorities to protect and care for it.
The Court recorded that all future permissions for tree cutting must be preceded by due consideration of transplantation alternatives.
It was held that a detailed assessment must be undertaken, and Tree Officers must document site inspections with photographic evidence and reasoned orders.
The judicial reasoning also encompassed broader environmental jurisprudence. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s articulation in Vanashakti, stating: “Under Article 21… the right to live in a pollution free environment is guaranteed… Conservation of environment and its improvement is an essential part of the concept of development.”
“Measures such as the 2021 OM to protect violators of environmental norms are violative of Article 21… and arbitrary under Article 14.”
It was observed that “Courts should come down heavily on such attempts” to circumvent environmental safeguards.
On the question of judicial competence to issue binding SOPs in contempt proceedings, the Court noted:“The jurisdiction vested [under Articles 129 and 215] is a special one… not derived from any statute but from the Constitution… not limited by the Contempt of Courts Act.”
“Parliament's power of legislation on the subject cannot be so exercised as to stultify the status and dignity of the Supreme Court and/or the High Courts.”
Hence, the Court concluded that its directions were within constitutional bounds and necessary to ensure the efficacy of its previous orders.
The Court directed that in addition to the gazetted SOP, the following measures be strictly adhered to:The Divisional Conservator of Forest (DCF)/Tree Officer shall be mandatorily involved at the project planning stage for any development requiring felling or transplantation of trees. Their participation must precede approval of site plans and construction permissions.
The compensatory plantations must adhere to the following standards: trees planted must be no less than 6 feet in height, possess a nursery life of five years, and have a collar girth of not less than 10 centimeters.
Applicants seeking permission for tree felling must submit affidavits undertaking responsibility for the upkeep, watering, maintenance, and general care of the compensatory trees for a continuous period of five years. They must file quarterly compliance reports with photographs, copies of which are to be submitted to the DCF and the Court-appointed amicus curiae.
Trees approved for transplantation must not be subjected to excessive pruning. The Tree Officer is required to assess and document the health of such trees before and after the transplantation process.
The authorities and Tree Officer must consider the total number of permissions sought by an applicant for a project, the cumulative environmental impact, availability of alternative sites, the neighborhood’s green cover, and the age and ecological importance of the trees in question. The likelihood of survival post-transplantation must also be assessed.
The SOP is to be read harmoniously with the DPT Act, specifically Section 7(d), and monitored post-approval by the DCF to ensure continuous compliance.
The Court concluded that respondents were bound to ensure full execution of the SOP “in its true spirit, letter and intent.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satyakam and Ms. Asmita Singh, Amicus Curiae; Mr. Piyush Sharma and Mr. Pratyush Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Senior Advocate, Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Rahul Rajput, Mr. Rajeev J. Agarwal, Advocates; Mr. Jagan, Scientist “E”; Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil), GNCTD; Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD; Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Ms. Manashwy Jha, Advocates; Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for MCD
Case Title: Bhavreen Kandhari v. Shri C.D. Singh and Ors.
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 1149/2022 & Connected Applications
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
