The Supreme Court today issued notice on an application filed by the Tree Authority of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai(MCGM) seeking permission to fell 124 and translocate 333 trees for a film institute development project near the Aarey Forest area.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocates Dhruv Mehta (for Tree Authority), Maninder Singh, and Arundhati Katju (for NGO-Vanashakti). The petitioners/intervenors and State of Maharashtra shall file their response in 2 weeks.

At the outset of the hearing, Mehta submitted that the project was of "national importance" and the land from which trees were sought to be translocated/fell did not fall in the Aarey Forest area. He contended that the permission was being sought only as a measure of abundant caution, as the Court has necessitated prior permission for felling of trees by way of its January 2025 order.

For context, the January 2025 order precluded the Tree Authority of MCGM from granting permission to fell trees in the Aarey Colony Area without leave of the Court. The Tree Authority could process the applications and then apply for leave of the court.

Mehta highlighted that the Court had earlier granted permission for another project in Goregaon and called for a compliance affidavit on compensatory afforestation. He informed that the compensatory afforestation had duly been carried out.

Relying on a map, the senior counsel contended that the land in question fell in the Film City, not the forest area. In response to Mehta's submissions, Katju sought time to file a reply. She highlighted that previously as well, a project proponent claimed that the land on which trees were sought to be felled was not part of forest area, but ultimately, the land turned out to be part of the forest. She further sought to raise a larger issue as to the extent to which felling of trees should be permitted for development projects.

"They have not filed a suitability report. They have not filed anything to say that they have checked for alternative sites which may be available. Will they be able to stick to the timelines for afforestation this time? Each time, they have had to come and seek extension from your lordships.

Ultimately, whether now in forest areas, whether colleges have to be built in these areas? Roads and other development projects are one thing...but now they want to build a film institute for teaching graphic designing?" Katju submitted.

Mehta responded by informing that the Central government has 34% stake in the project proponent-company, while the state government has 14%. He emphasized that necessary lease agreement has been entered into and the requisite Environmental Clearance has also been obtained.

"Ultimately what is the forest cover that will remain?" Katju persisted. When Maninder Singh said that the project would be for the benefit of younger generations, Katju retorted that younger generations are also the ones who would have to deal with global warming and effects of deforestation.

Following a Court query, Mehta submitted that the project proponent has undertaken to plant 5000 trees (through Maharashtra Forest Development Corporation) as part of compensatory afforestation. Insofar as Justice Bagchi flagged a need for clarity on the determination of number of trees required to be fell/transplanted for the project, Mehta said the Tree Authority has no objection if the Court wishes to call for an independent report from any authority. He even recommended 3 authorities for the purpose - IIT Bombay, VGIT and BNHS.

Before parting, CJI Kant commented that if projects of national importance are involved, and a reasonable plan for compensatory afforestation is in place, some balance can be struck and an independent agency asked to entrusted with the compensatory afforestation.

Case: IN RE FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA) Versus, SMW(C) No. 2/2019