Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 9 October 2024
- Bench
- Justices Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Article 21
Suo moto PIL registered, notice issued, amici appointed and the 15-day undertaking continued (paras 5, 10-13). On 20.04.2026 the Court called for the file on the State's NOC of 10.03.2026. The interim order continues; the case was listed on 15.10.2026.
Key holdings
- Newspaper reports on the proposed felling were registered as a suo moto PIL, and both reports form part of the pleadings (paras 5-6, 11).
- The respondents were asked to address saving the trees, alternative land for the project and afforestation in the same area (para 7).
- No interim order was passed, but the law officers' undertaking that no tree would be cut for 15 days was continued till the next date (paras 8, 13).
- A Senior Advocate and two advocates were appointed amici curiae (para 12).
- Later orders impleaded the project proponent (12.11.2024) and barred felling without the Court's permission (28.04.2025) till final disposal (10.10.2025).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- M K Ranjitsinh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019, decided on 21.03.2024
There is a right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, recognised by Articles 14 and 21; it and the right to a clean environment are two sides of the same coin.
- In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, decided on 06.03.2024
The forest is necessary for the protection of tigers, and protecting the tiger protects the ecosystem; protection of their habitat must be a priority.
- In Re: Recent Felling of Trees in Gangtok (High Court of Sikkim, Division Bench) WP (PIL) No. 04 of 2020, decided on 10.01.2022
Every citizen must help protect trees; a tree should be felled only when no other option remains, and construction should be planned around it.
