Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the reported illegal chopping of 488 trees near Bhopal, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., Vinay Saraf, J., sought responses from different authorities regarding transplantation and directed that no tree shall be cut, pruned or transplanted in any manner in Madhya Pradesh except with the prior permission of the Committee constituted by the NGT and the Tree Officer concerned till the next date of hearing.
Background
The Court took suo motu cognizance based on an article published in the Times of India, Delhi, on 29-10-2025, reporting that 488 trees were axed by the PWD near Bhopal without permission from the National Green Tribunal (“NGT”) appointed body. The report further indicated that no permission was obtained from the nine-member State Government-constituted Committee (“Special Committee”) or from the Tree Officer. Apparently, permission was granted by the Additional District Magistrate, Raisen, for the felling of trees.
On the last date, the Court directed that no tree in Bhopal shall be cut, pruned, or transplanted in any manner except with the leave of the Court. The Court also sought the personal appearance of certain officials, namely Ajay Shrivastava, Executive Engineer of the PWD, Under Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Administrative Officer-cum-under Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Principal Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, and General Manager of the West Central Railways. Accordingly, the said officials appeared before the Court.
The State contended that some infraction had happened in the past, but it was a bona fide error, and for infrastructural development. The State also clarified that there was no tree transplantation policy in Madhya Pradesh that could regulate the cutting and transplantation of trees. Though several trees had been cut, there were more that were required to be cut or transplanted for the purposes of the ongoing project.
The Railway contended that only 435 trees had been cut, not 8000 for the railway project, and no permission was required for cutting the trees. Accordingly, the Railway sought time to show the relevant Regulation to substantiate the submission.
Analysis
Noting the submissions of the State, the Court directed it to file an affidavit indicating the number of trees that had been cut, the trees that were proposed to be cut/transplanted for the project concerned, and the place where the trees were proposed to be transplanted. The State was also directed to file an affidavit explaining the proposal to restore/rehabilitate the green cover that has been and will be lost on account of the cutting of. The affidavit shall mention the number, location, nature, age, and size of the trees that are sought to be planted.
The Court noted that Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Vrikshon Ka Parirakshan (Nagariya Kshetra) Adhiniyam, 2001 (“the Adhiniyam”) permits the State Government to appoint one or more Forest Officers, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, or Chief Municipal Officer as the Tree Officer for the purposes of the Adhiniyam for each urban area. In this regard, the Court was informed that such a notification had been issued, and in cases where a Municipal Commissioner was appointed as the Tree Officer, the Municipal Commissioners delegated the power to their subordinate officers exercising the provisions of Section 69(4) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (“MC Act”).
Taking note of such submission, the Court opined that the appointment of a Tree Officer is under Section 4 of the Adhiniyam instead of the MC Act. The Court stated that, “Since the appointment is by the State Government, there can be no delegation of the said power under Section 69(4) of the Act of 1956 to any other municipal officer.” The Court reasoned that Section 5 of the Adhiniyam empowers the State Government to appoint such other officers/employees of the Forest Department or local authority, as may be necessary; however, they shall be subordinate to the Tree Officer.
Accordingly, the Court directed the State Government to appoint the Tree Officer as per Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, and in cases where a Tree Officer had been appointed, the said power shall be exercised by the Tree Officer so appointed and not by any subordinate or delegated authority.
Regarding the submission of the State that there is no Tree Transplantation Policy in Madhya Pradesh, the Court directed the State Government to take immediate steps for the formation of such a policy.
Thereafter, the Court stated that the following photographs produced by the State regarding the transplanted trees were far from reality:
“The photographs show a dismal state of affairs regarding the transplantation.”
The Court also took note of a newspaper article dated 25-11-2025 published in the Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur edition, which showed that the Collector of Sagar District permitted cutting of 1000 trees in the Collectorate itself. The State disputed the number of trees that had been cut and stated that it was only shrubs that were pruned and not trees.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court directed the Collector, Sagar, to file an affidavit within two weeks indicating the number of trees that were cut and the steps taken for transplantation/restoration of the green cover.
The Court also referred to the order dated 23-05-2025 of the NGT in Nitin Saxena v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited1 wherein the NGT constituted a Joint Committee and issued extensive directions for the protection of the green cover. In these directions, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was directed to constitute a High Level Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine the permission and justification of cutting of trees where it concerns more than 25 trees in Madhya Pradesh. Now, this reference to the Principal Chief Conservator Officer has been replaced with the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Administration and Development, for the urban areas of Madhya Pradesh.
In the meantime, the Court directed that no tree shall be cut, pruned, or transplanted in any manner in Madhya Pradesh except with the prior permission of the Committee constituted by the NGT and the Tree Officer concerned till the next date of hearing. The officers who were directed to be present in Court were exempted from personal appearance till further order.
The Court also directed the respondents to file a reply in the connected writ petition regarding the allegations pertaining to the cutting of trees and not planting of alternate trees in their place.
The matter was listed for 17-12-2025.
[In reference (Suo Moto) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 42565 of 2025, decided on 26-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Advocates K.K. Pandey (W.P. No.17144/2024)
For the intervenors: Advocates Harpeet Singh Gupta, Manan Agrawal, Shubham Mishra, Nancy Chaturvedi, Shubham Mishra, Hemant Gupta, P.S. Gupta, and Aditya Khandekar
Amicus Curiae: Amalpushp Shroti
For the respondent: Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly, Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain, Deputy Solicitor General Suyash Mohan Guru, Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar, Advocates Abhishek Dwivedi, Dev Sharma, Deepanshu Rai, Ritwik Parashar, Sushobhit Kacchi, and Krishna Rohanda
1. O.A. No.68/2025(CZ)