Kiran Raj

The Meghalaya High Court has directed the State authorities to ensure strict compliance with the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Act, 1976, and the Meghalaya Tree (Preservation) Rules, 1976, in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the felling of trees in Lower New Colony, Laitumkhrah. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji and Justice W. Diengdoh mandated additional procedural requirements for applications seeking permission to cut trees, emphasizing the necessity for detailed justification and prior inspection.

This PIL, filed by Geraldine G. Shabong, raises concerns over alleged illegal or irregular felling of trees in the said region. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to safeguard environmental interests, prompting the Court’s directives to the State authorities for greater scrutiny in processing such requests.

On February 7, 2025, the Court had ordered the State respondents to submit an affidavit disclosing all pending applications for tree felling in the area by February 28, 2025. It was further directed that these applications be processed strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory framework. The Court had also instructed that all previously granted permissions for felling, which had not yet been executed, be kept in abeyance and subjected to a review by the authorities.

The affidavit, now placed before the Court, contains annexures detailing the number of pending applications, the specific trees proposed for felling, the applicants’ stated reasons, and inspection reports. The materials indicate ongoing systematic action by the State respondents. As per Annexure-1 of the affidavit, all applications remain under consideration, with the number of trees requested for felling ranging from two to eighty-nine per application. In each case, applicants have cited the reason as "tree posing danger to human life."

Also Read:Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Cancelling Bail, Citing Absence of Valid Justification

The Court took note that the applications follow a prescribed format under Form-1 to Rule 3(1) of the Meghalaya Tree Preservation Rules, 1976. The form permits multiple grounds for seeking tree felling permission, including the justification that the tree “has become dangerous to life and property.” The Court acknowledged that it has no authority to alter the statutory form but imposed an additional requirement for applicants to provide a detailed explanation in an annexure as to how the tree poses a danger to life and property.

The Bench observed: “Nevertheless, we direct the State respondents to instruct each and every applicant to append as an annexure to the form, in explanation of the reason: ‘has become dangerous to life and property,’ the details how the tree has become dangerous to life and property.”

Further, the Court directed the State respondents to inspect the site and assess whether the tree in question genuinely constitutes a danger. The inspection should explore possible preservation measures, such as pruning branches or trimming sections of the trunk, before resorting to felling. The Court stated: “If they do find that a tree ‘has become dangerous to life and property,’ first of all, they will try to preserve it by taking appropriate measures like clipping the trunk and branches or chopping a part of it and retaining the rest.”

The Court also outlined circumstances in which felling may be permitted, specifying that only trees deemed imminently dangerous, where substantial damage is inevitable if left standing, may be felled immediately. The directive provides a clear approach for authorities to ensure that tree felling is carried out strictly in accordance with legal provisions and environmental considerations. The Court ordered that no tree be felled unless it poses an immediate threat, stating: “Only in case of a tree which is so dangerously situated that danger or damage is imminent, should the respondents fell it immediately.”

Also Read: Right To Life Includes Living Without Mental Trauma: J&K High Court Allows Termination Of 28-Week Pregnancy Of Minor Sexual Assault Victim

The State authorities are required to process the pending applications in conformity with these directives and submit a compliance report to the Court. Until further orders, all felling operations are to be halted unless the tree’s condition is found to present an immediate and substantial danger. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 9, 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Khyriem, Advocate, with Mr. B. Snaitang, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. R. Colney, Government Advocate

Case Title: Geraldine G. Shabong v. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Case Number: PIL No. 2/2024
Bench: Chief Justice I.P. Mukerji, Justice W. Diengdoh

[Read/Download order]