MP High Court Extends Ban On Cutting Trees In Bhopal, Says State Has Only Planted 'Trunks', Not Transplanted Trees

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Wednesday (November 26), sought a report from the State government specifying how many trees have been felled and how many are proposed to be felled, along with the proposed locations for transplantation, while referring to the cost of trees in terms of oxygen generated, as emphasized by the Supreme Court. 

In the meantime, the court continued the operation of its order prohibiting the State Government from cutting, pruning or transporting trees in the entire area of Bhopal in any manner without the prior permission of the court.

For context, the Supreme Court has consistently highlighted the importance of minimizing tree felling in public projects and stressed that compensatory afforestation should be a prerequisite for such permissions.

The division bench Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf issued these directions while hearing a suo motu petition over a news report published in the Times of India, according to which the Public Works Department (PWD) had allegedly felled 488 trees without taking the requisite permissions.

According to the report, the central bench of the NGT had asked the state government to constitute a committee for considering the felling of trees for the construction of a stadium and road widening at Neelbad.

Earlier, the court had directed the PWD to file an affidavit stating the number of trees that had been felled for the project and how many additional trees were intended to be felled. It noted that out of the 448 trees proposed for translocation, 253 had already been 'transplanted', according to the State's affidavit.

However, in the last hearing, the court observed that the State authorities do not appear "interested in protecting or transplanting any tree but are in a rampant manner cutting and destroying the entire vegetation which is coming in the way of alleged development". The bench also summoned Senior Officials, including those employed with the Railway Department. 

On Wednesday, the counsel for the State argued that media reports were exaggerated and insisted that the trees were cut in urban areas, not forests. It claimed that out of 224 trees, 112 have been transplanted and added that a high-powered committee had been constituted on September 3, 2025, pursuant to NGT's direction. 

The bench, upon examining the photographs, noted that mere trunks were transplanted, orally remarking "Are these transplanted trees? Can you call it a transplanted tree? Which of the officers certified these as transplanted trees?". 

The court noted that the constitution of the high-powered committee was recorded in the first court order, but no permission to cut such trees was taken from the said committee. It further noted that although a high-powered committee was recorded in the previous court order, no permission from the committee was sought before cutting the trees. 

The bench also questioned the alleged 8000 trees felled by the Railway Department. Officials clarified that 435 non-nationalised trees, which did not require permission to be cut, were axed. It was orally observed;

"the trees that you have cut, how many years did it take for them to grow? You see, there is an exercise done which is reported to one of the Supreme Court judgments into what costs, what is the cost of a tree in terms of oxygen generation. Each tree, age of the tree, these are years old. What you have done is left trunks... Now, these trees will take several hundred years for them to come back to the position they were in. That is why the Supreme Court has said when you cut one tree, at least 10 trees should be planted". 

Therefore, the bench, in its order, observed; 

"Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the state, candidly submits that some infraction has taken place in the past. However, he submits that the same was a bona fide error for the purposes of infrastructural development. He further submits that there is no tree transplantation policy in the state of Madhya Pradesh which could regulate the cutting and transplantation of trees. He submits that several trees have been cut. However, there are several more trees which are required to be cut or transplanted for the purposes of the ongoing project.  Respondents are directed to file an affidavit indicating the number of trees that have been cut, the trees that are proposed to be cut for the purposes of the ensuing project and also the place where the trees are likely to be transplanted. Respondents shall also file an affidavit indicating the proposal to restore the green cover to restore stock, rehabilitate the green cover that that has been lost on account of cutting of trees, as also the cutting of further trees that are coming in the way of development project. The affidavit shall indicate the number of trees that are sought to be planted, the location, the nature and size of the nature, age and size of the trees that are thought to be planted". 

The case is listed for December 17, 2025.

Case Title: In reference (suo motu) v State [WP-42565-2025]