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 felling of 488 trees case in Bhopal, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., Vinay Saraf, J., directed the State to file a better affidavit indicating the exact nature, age, and girth of trees proposed to be planted as compensation.
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 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 Court further directed the State to file an affidavit mentioning the number of cut trees, 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. The affidavit shall mention the number, location, nature, age, and size of the trees that are proposed to be planted.
Accordingly, the State filed a status report and a report of the expert body constituted to examine the impact of the trees that had been cut and the proposed compensatory plantation.
Analysis
The Court noted that the report did not mention the complete afforestation area and the number of trees that could be accommodated there. Further, a part of that area was adjacent to a city forest, i.e., trees already existed there.
The Court directed the State to file a better affidavit indicating the exact nature, age, and girth of trees that are sought to be planted as compensation for the trees that had already been cut and were proposed to be cut.
The Court again directed that pruning and cutting of trees shall be done strictly as per prior permission granted by the Committee constituted by the NGT and the concerned Tree Officer.
The matter was listed for 14-01-2026.
[In reference (Suo Moto) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 42565 of 2025, decided on 17-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the intervenors: Advocates Harpeet Singh Gupta, Manan Agrawal, Shubham Mishra, Nancy Chaturvedi, Shubham Mishra, Hemant Gupta, and Yash Choubey
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, and Deepanshu Rai