SC Slams Illegal Tree Felling: ₹1 Lakh Fine Per Tree, Says Worse Than Killing a Human
The Supreme Court ruled that cutting a large number of trees is worse than killing a human and imposed a strict fine of ₹1 lakh per illegally felled tree. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized zero tolerance for environmental damage and rejected a plea for leniency from Shiv Shankar Agarwal, who had cut down 454 trees in the protected Taj Trapezium Zone despite a 2015 ban. The ruling sets a precedent for strict penalties in tree-felling cases, with the court stressing that restoring lost greenery would take at least 100 years.
A report by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) supported the heavy fine, though Agarwal’s lawyer argued for a reduction and alternative plantation, which was denied. The CEC found that the trees were cut illegally on both private and protected land on September 18, 2024. Deeply disturbed by the violation, the Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings against Agarwal and directed the CEC to recommend further actions. Authorities were instructed to recover the fine and take legal action under the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976, and the Indian Forest Act, 1972.
SC Slams Illegal Tree Felling: ₹1 Lakh Fine Per Tree, Says Worse Than Killing a Human
The Supreme Court has issued a powerful statement against the unauthorized cutting of trees, calling it a grave offense that surpasses even the loss of human life. In a recent ruling, the court declared that individuals who harm the environment must face strict consequences and refused to show any leniency in such cases. It upheld a hefty penalty of ₹1 lakh for each illegally felled tree, setting a clear standard for future environmental violations. This decision came in a case involving Shiv Shankar Agarwal, who had cut down 454 trees within the ecologically sensitive Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), a protected area since 2015 designed to safeguard the Taj Mahal and its surroundings.
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that environmental laws must be taken seriously, and violators deserve strict punishment. The judges dismissed Agarwal’s appeal to reduce the fine, stressing that the damage caused was irreversible. They pointed out that restoring the lost green cover would take over a century, highlighting the long-term impact of deforestation. The court relied on a report from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), an advisory body on environmental matters, which recommended the ₹1 lakh-per-tree fine due to the severity of the offense.
The case dates back to September 18, 2024, when Agarwal illegally felled 454 trees overnight. Investigations revealed that 422 of these trees were on private land (Dalmia Farm in Vrindavan), while 32 stood on a protected forest strip along a roadside. The Supreme Court, deeply troubled by this blatant disregard for its earlier orders, initiated contempt proceedings against Agarwal. It also directed the CEC to propose further legal steps, including action under the Indian Forest Act, 1972, for the destruction of trees in a protected forest area.
During the hearing, Agarwal’s lawyer, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, admitted his client’s wrongdoing and apologized on his behalf. He argued that the ₹45.4 crore fine (₹1 lakh multiplied by 454 trees) was excessively harsh and requested a reduction. Rohatgi also proposed compensating for the damage by planting new trees in a nearby area rather than at the exact location where the trees were cut. While the court rejected the plea to lower the fine, it permitted Agarwal to carry out tree plantations in adjacent areas as a partial remedy. However, the judges made it clear that this allowance did not absolve him of financial responsibility for the environmental harm caused.
The CEC’s report played a crucial role in the verdict. It not only confirmed the number of trees destroyed but also recommended that the Uttar Pradesh forest department recover the penalty under the state’s Protection of Trees Act, 1976. Additionally, the committee urged authorities to pursue criminal charges against Agarwal under the Indian Forest Act for felling trees in a protected zone. The court’s firm stance sends a strong message about the importance of adhering to environmental regulations, particularly in ecologically fragile regions like the TTZ, which includes the Taj Mahal and surrounding heritage sites.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s growing concern over environmental degradation. By equating the destruction of trees to a crime worse than murder, the court highlighted the irreplaceable value of forests in maintaining ecological balance. It also acknowledged the challenges of reversing deforestation, noting that replanting efforts cannot quickly replicate the complex ecosystems lost. The decision aims to deter future violations by imposing significant financial penalties and holding offenders accountable through legal action.
This case serves as a warning to individuals and businesses that flout environmental laws for personal gain. The Supreme Court’s refusal to reduce the fine, despite Agarwal’s apology, reinforces the principle that ignorance or negligence is no excuse for harming the environment. While the option to plant trees nearby offers a path toward partial redemption, it does not eliminate the consequences of illegal actions. The verdict sets a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that protecting natural resources remains a top priority for India’s legal system.