Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Saturday, October 10, 2026 Jaipur Edition
Rajasthan High Court
Environmental Law

Healthy Environment a Facet of Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Takes Up Plan to Fell 1.19 Lakh Trees

Published: · NyayVidhan

Acting on newspaper reports that 1.19 lakh trees were proposed to be cut for a Pumped Storage Project in Shahbad Block of Baran district, the Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance and registered a public interest litigation (paras 1, 5, 11). It observed that the right to a green and healthy environment is a facet of the right to life under Article 21 (para 4). Later orders bar felling without the Court's permission; the case is pending.

Healthy Environment a Facet of Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Takes Up Plan to Fell 1.19 Lakh Trees
Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Judgment Intelligence

Other
Suo Moto: In Re Save The Trees (1.19 Lakh in Number) Proposed to be Cut Down for Establishment of Pumped Storage Project in Shahbad Block, District Baran v. Union of India & Ors.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17161/2024 (Suo Motu PIL)
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
Final Outcome

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

  1. 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).
  2. The respondents were asked to address saving the trees, alternative land for the project and afforestation in the same area (para 7).
  3. 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).
  4. A Senior Advocate and two advocates were appointed amici curiae (para 12).
  5. 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

On 08.10.2024, Rajasthan Patrika and Dainik Bhaskar reported that 1.19 lakh trees were proposed to be cut down for a Pumped Storage Project in Shahbad Block of Baran district, about 15 km from Kuno National Park (para 1). According to the reports, the area is densely forested; its 450 hectares soak about 22.5 lakh metric tons of carbon, and clearing it would endanger flora and fauna, add to climate change and could cause soil erosion (para 2). The alternate land provided for afforestation lies about 712 km away in Jaisalmer district and, as per the report, soaks only 3,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide (para 3).

Court's Findings

The Court observed that the right to a green and healthy environment is a facet of the right to life under Article 21. This casts a responsibility on the State and its functionaries not only to protect the environment from degradation but also to take active steps to preserve, protect and revive it (para 4). It drew on the Supreme Court's recognition in M K Ranjitsinh of a right against the adverse effects of climate change, rooted in Articles 14 and 21 (para 4.1); on T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, where the Supreme Court stressed that the forest and its tigers protect each other (para 4.2); and on the Sikkim High Court's view that a tree should be felled only when no other option remains (para 4.3). It registered the matter against the Union Environment Ministry and the State's forest authorities (para 5). It asked the respondents to consider how the trees could be saved, whether alternative land exists for the project, and whether afforestation could take place in the same area (para 7). It passed no interim order, recording the law officers' statement that there was no immediate danger for 15 days because stage one approval was awaited (para 8).

Legal Principle

The right to a green and healthy environment is a facet of the right to life under Article 21. It casts a responsibility on the State and its functionaries not merely to protect the environment from degradation but to take active steps to preserve, protect and revive it (para 4).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. M K Ranjitsinh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors Writ Petition (Civil) No. 838 of 2019, decided on 21.03.2024
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4

    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.

  2. In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, decided on 06.03.2024
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    The forest is necessary for the protection of tigers, and protecting the tiger protects the ecosystem; protection of their habitat must be a priority.

  3. 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
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4

    Every citizen must help protect trees; a tree should be felled only when no other option remains, and construction should be planned around it.

NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: October 9, 2024 Justices Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt