By Sujit Bhar
Environmental laws in the country are being flouted at will, and there seems little that courts or the common man can do about it. Within this atmosphere comes an order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, which is a ray of hope for the few that still hold ecological values high enough to make a difference.
The bench has described the Punjab government’s new environment law as “draconian”, particularly because its provision for deemed permission, following the payment of prescribed charges, could lead to the devastation of the scant green cover remaining in the state. Faced with the Court’s strong observations, the Punjab government has agreed to keep the legislation in abeyance while the matter remains pending.
This is a significant development, not merely for Punjab, but for environmental protection across the country.
The larger question is whether governments in India have begun treating environmental protection as an inconvenience that must be overcome in the pursuit of “development”. From the forests of central India to the hills and coastal regions, the destruction of green cover is increasingly being justified in the name of infrastructure, industrial expansion, tourism and urbanisation.
The argument is invariably that development cannot wait. What is rarely explained is why development must so often come at the cost of the very natural resources that sustain human life.
The Punjab case is particularly revealing because it demonstrates how legislation intended to regulate an activity can, through its provisions, actually make that activity easier and potentially more destructive.
A DISREGARD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
The litigation began in December 2025, when Mohali resident Praneet Kaur approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the proposed felling of 251 mature trees in SAS Nagar, Mohali. The trees were to be removed to facilitate the construction of roundabouts and rotaries at different junctions along the PR-7 road by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA). The petition questioned the decision to auction the right to cut these trees and argued that infrastructure development could not be pursued by disregarding the environmental consequences.
What began as a challenge concerning a few hundred trees soon developed into a much wider judicial intervention. On December 24, 2025, a division bench led by the then Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry prohibited the felling of trees anywhere in Punjab, irrespective of their age or species, without the Court’s permission until further orders.
The Court’s concern was rooted in some deeply disturbing figures. According to the India State of Forest Report, 2023, forest and tree cover accounted for just 3.67 percent of Punjab’s geographical area and 3.65 percent of Haryana’s. These figures were substantially below the national average of 25.17 percent and the 33 percent benchmark envisaged under the National Forest Policy, 1988. The Court observed that Punjab’s forest cover was even lower than Rajasthan’s reported figure of 4.87 percent.
The intervention was subsequently extended to Haryana as applications seeking permission for tree felling continued to come before the Court. The intention was clear: where the ecological position is already so precarious, governments cannot be allowed to treat the loss of every additional tree as an insignificant administrative decision.
However, a blanket restriction also created practical difficulties. Routine developmental activities, including road widening and essential public infrastructure projects, could face complications. The Court had, therefore, prepared detailed guidelines for authorities dealing with applications for tree-felling permissions, seeking to balance legitimate developmental requirements with environmental responsibility.
It was against this background that the Punjab government enacted the Punjab Protection of Trees Act, 2026, on September 24, replacing the Trees Preservation Policy for Non-Forest Government and Public Lands, 2024.
THE DEEMED PERMISSION ISSUE
On paper, the legislation appeared to establish a regulatory framework. Applications would be examined by designated Tree Protection Officers, while provisions were made for prescribed charges, compensatory plantations and penalties for violations. But the most contentious feature was the provision for deemed permission.
Under the legislation, an officer must decide an ordinary application for tree felling within 30 days, while applications concerning dead or fallen trees must be decided within seven days. Failure to issue a decision within the stipulated period would result in permission being deemed to have been granted.
This is where the High Court’s intervention assumes particular significance. An administrative deadline cannot become an automatic licence to destroy trees. The absence of a decision by an officer cannot logically be treated as evidence that a proposed felling has been environmentally examined and found acceptable.
The petitioners have argued that the provision weakens the safeguards available under the earlier policy, especially when government agencies themselves may be seeking permission to fell trees for their projects. The Court, questioning the mechanism, indicated its willingness to examine the merits of the legislation and asked the state to reconsider its provisions. Following the observations on October 31, the Punjab government’s counsel informed the bench that the law would not be implemented while the proceedings remained pending.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
The implications extend well beyond Punjab. Across India, governments appear increasingly willing to sacrifice green cover for projects described as essential to economic growth. Forests are diverted, trees are felled and natural habitats are disturbed, often with the assurance that compensatory plantation and environmental safeguards will make good the damage. But can a mature forest, with its complex biodiversity, be replaced by planting saplings somewhere else? Can an ecosystem that has taken decades or centuries to develop be recreated through an administrative exercise?
The answer is obvious. A forest is not merely a collection of trees. It is a living system comprising wildlife, microorganisms, soil, water bodies and an intricate ecological balance. The destruction of such a system cannot be measured simply by counting the number of saplings planted in compensation.
One of the most striking examples is the Great Nicobar Island development project in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The ambitious project, involving an international container transshipment port, an airport, a township and a power plant, has an estimated investment of around Rs 81,000 crore. Its environmental implications are enormous.
Government figures indicate that approximately 130.75 square kilometres of forest land are proposed to be diverted. The estimated tree population in this area is 18.65 lakh, of which up to 7.11 lakh trees are expected to be felled. The project is also expected to affect an ecologically sensitive region containing tropical forests, endemic species and important wildlife habitats.
A SPECIAL PROJECT
The government’s argument is that the project has strategic and economic significance, and that environmental safeguards, biodiversity conservation measures and compensatory afforestation will mitigate the damage. The National Green Tribunal, in February 2026, declined to interfere with the environmental clearance, citing the safeguards and strategic importance of the project.
However, the fundamental question remains: should economic and strategic considerations automatically outweigh ecological concerns? And who determines whether the environmental price being paid is acceptable?
The proposed development of townships, tourism infrastructure and other facilities in ecologically sensitive areas also raises questions about the kind of development India wishes to pursue. The country cannot aspire to become a major economic power while treating its natural heritage as expendable land waiting to be converted into commercial assets.
There is a disturbing pattern emerging. Governments appear to be using legislation and administrative mechanisms to facilitate projects that might otherwise encounter environmental restrictions. Instead of strengthening existing safeguards, new policies and laws sometimes create easier routes for obtaining permissions, diverting forest land or clearing trees. The result is that environmental protection increasingly becomes a procedural formality rather than a substantive obligation.
This is precisely why the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s intervention deserves attention. Its significance is not that it has permanently stopped a particular law or prohibited all development. The Court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the Punjab Protection of Trees Act, 2026. Rather, it has questioned the very philosophy behind a mechanism that could turn tree protection into a system of payment and automatic approval.
The distinction is important. Environmental legislation must ensure that permission to destroy a natural resource is granted only after genuine scrutiny of necessity, alternatives and ecological consequences. An applicant cannot be allowed to treat the payment of a prescribed fee as compensation for the loss of a tree, much less an entire avenue of mature trees.
This order can be used as a template for wider applications. The country’s natural resources are rare and need protection.
The post How Green Was Our Land appeared first on India Legal.