In a significant win for environmental protection in Telangana, the Supreme Court of India intervened to halt deforestation in the Kancha Gachibowli region of Hyderabad. Through suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2025, the Court issued strong directives to prevent further felling of trees and displacement of wildlife, stalling the state government's plans to auction the cleared land for the development of an IT park.

The issue came into focus when, on Ugadi and Gudi Padwa, the Telangana government began cutting down over four hundred trees overnight, clearing nearly a hundred acres of forest. The site, reportedly part of the University of Hyderabad campus (though not officially owned by the University), is home to eight species of scheduled wild animals. The sudden deforestation sparked immediate protests by students and environmental activists who gathered at the site and urged the media and social platforms to highlight the situation.

By April 3rd, 2025, the matter had reached the Telangana High Court via two writ petitions-one by the Vata Foundation [WP(PIL) 27/2025] and another by Kalapala Babu Rao [WP(PIL) 30/2025]. The High Court ordered the government to halt all development at the site. That same day, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance and directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Telangana High Court to conduct a site inspection and file an interim report within hours.

The Registrar’s report confirmed that large numbers of small, medium, and large trees had been destroyed. The forest area, nearly 100 acres, hosted flora and fauna including deer, peacocks, and birds. The Supreme Court recorded these findings and directed the Chief Secretary of Telangana to respond to its queries. It also ordered that no activity other than tree protection take place on the land and warned that the Chief Secretary would be personally liable for any violations.

The legal framework includes the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, which require each state and union territory to form Regional Expert Committees to identify forests and forest-like lands. Under Rule 16(1), these Committees must prepare records of such lands. Rule 16(2) mandates that tree felling on approved forest land must be minimal and supervised by the local Forest Department. Any forest produce obtained must be handed over to the Forest Department, preferably to meet local domestic needs.

The Supreme Court had reiterated these requirements in Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd.) v. Union of India [WP(C) No. 1164/2023], directing states and UTs to form Expert Committees within one month and complete surveys within six months. It had also repeatedly barred governments from reducing forest land without providing compensatory land, through its orders dated 30.11.2023, 19.02.2024, and 03.02.2025.

In Telangana, the Expert Committee was formed only on 15th March 2025, just two weeks before the incident. No comprehensive surveys or mandatory procedures under Rule 16(1) were conducted. The Registrar’s report documented the presence of a natural lake and diverse vegetation. These features, along with the wildlife recorded, would likely classify the land as “forest-like.” Had the survey been completed, the land may have been formally recognized as such, preventing the unsupervised and large-scale destruction.

The Supreme Court also questioned what happened to the timber from the felled trees. Rule 16(2) requires such forest produce to be handed over to the Forest Department and preferably used for local domestic needs. But since Kancha Gachibowli lies within Hyderabad city limits, no such local population exists. This raised concerns about the intended use or possible misuse of the timber. Moreover, the figure of 400 trees was a rough estimate-the actual number could be significantly higher if the deforestation had continued.

The timing of the tree-felling-March 30th, 2025-coincided with a long weekend and multiple festivals. This has led to suspicions that the move was strategically timed to avoid media attention and judicial oversight.

The Supreme Court’s rapid and effective response is commendable. Its direction for a same-day site visit and interim report demonstrated urgency and commitment to environmental protection. The Court’s swift action ensured that the entire forest was not lost by the time of the next hearing. It also underscored the message that no government is above the law and that environmental responsibility must be upheld.

This episode also reflects the power of civic and student-led movements. Initially limited in reach, the protests gained traction through national media, eventually pushing the issue to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court. The progression from grassroots protest to judicial intervention is a powerful testament to the strength of India's democratic and legal institutions. It shows how citizens, by exercising their rights and engaging in peaceful protest, can hold the state accountable and protect vital natural resources.

The Kancha Gachibowli case is a landmark example of timely judicial intervention, legal clarity, and civil society action working together to safeguard the environment.

By - Manasi Chaudhari