Delhi govt tightens SOP for felling trees: Court panel's nod mandatory to cut down 50 or more
In a major shift, the Delhi Government has introduced a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which stipulates that no project involving the removal of 50 or more trees in the Capital can go ahead without approval from the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), a body set up by the Supreme Court in 2002 to oversee environmental matters.
The Department of Forests and Wildlife issued the new SOP through a gazette notification on April 24 this year. Under the new rules, even if a tree officer — an official who grants permission under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act,1973 — clears a proposal, the permission 'shall not be acted upon unless the same is approved by the CEC,' the order states.
Marking a break from the earlier SOP which gave tree officers full authority to allow felling, irrespective of the number of trees, the revised rules have shifted the final decision-making to the CEC for larger projects.
This means no physical removal of trees can begin until the CEC has reviewed the file and approved the plan. The SOP states that felling permission 'can be granted only by way of an exception and not in a routine manner.' It adds that even the illegal felling of a single full-grown tree 'hurts the environment and the society as a whole.' In December last year, the Supreme Court had mandated that tree felling permission for 50 or more trees require CEC clearance.
Once a tree officer clears any application involving 50 or more trees, they must send the full set of documents to the CEC right away. The CEC may ask for more details or changes and has the power to approve, reject, or modify the permission. The order also says that no tree can be cut unless the required compensatory plantation — planting of new trees in exchange — is completed.
'While granting permission to fell/ transplant 50 or more trees, unless the case is exceptional, actual tree-cutting work shall not be undertaken unless compliance is made with the requirement of planting trees by way of compensatory afforestation,' the SOP stated.
If trees are removed illegally in large numbers, the response must be immediate. The SOP said: 'In case of any illicit felling of 50 or more trees, the CEC will be informed by the tree officer within 24 hours.'
Applicants must follow detailed steps before applying to cut or transplant trees. These include uploading a fully filled form, ownership records, an exact count and location of all trees involved (with geo-tagged photos), and a detailed map of where replacement trees will be planted. If the project is related to construction or infrastructure, architectural plans showing how trees are impacted must also be submitted.
The SOP laid out how many trees must be planted to make up for those removed, and who will be responsible for maintaining them. For up to 25 trees, the applicant can carry out the plantation themselves. For more than 25, the applicant must provide land, pay for planting, and maintain the new trees for seven years. The health and location of each sapling must be tracked, and geo-tagged progress photos uploaded annually.
If an applicant fails to maintain the new trees, their security deposit will be forfeited, and the forest department will take over. The department can also demand additional funds to improve the site if needed.
The SOP has also placed limits on how many permissions can be granted from the same land. Only two permissions per year can be granted from the same area, and the total land cannot exceed one hectare. Even if two applications are filed separately in the same year — and the second one alone involves fewer than 50 trees — if the total across both exceeds 49 trees, CEC approval is still required.
Tree officers must visit each project site, check whether any trees can be saved, and list which trees are to be cut, transplanted, or kept. The SOP has also said, 'The tree officers shall make an effort to save as many trees as possible. The tree officers shall consider whether; by pruning or by some other methods, the trees can be saved from felling/transplantation.'
These trees must be marked — red for felling, yellow for transplantation — before final permission is given. The SOP said a 'Speaking Order' must be issued and permissions will be valid for two years, with a possible extension of one more year if justified.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
No compromise on women's dignity: SC tells lawyer who abused judge
The judiciary cannot compromise when it comes to the safety and dignity of women judges, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, refusing to interfere with the conviction and 18-month jail sentence of a Delhi-based lawyer who verbally abused and threatened a woman judicial officer in court. 'There can be no leniency in ensuring a safe workplace for women judges…Most of the judicial officers in Delhi today are women. They must feel safe at their place of work,' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan emphasised. Rejecting an appeal by advocate Sanjay Rathore, the bench added: 'They (women judges) won't be able to function if someone like him gets High Court is right.' The top court's decision comes weeks after the Delhi High Court delivered a scathing verdict, describing Rathore's conduct as 'an assault on justice itself' . The trial court had originally sentenced Rathore to a total of two years' imprisonment for using gendered abuse against a woman magistrate in 2015, but the high court reduced the term to 18 months. Rathore had already undergone six months in jail by the time his appeal was heard in the Supreme Court. His lawyer argued that the incident was a 'spur-of-the-moment' outburst and that further incarceration would be harsh. But the top court remained unmoved. 'Your sentence has already been reduced to 18 months. We can't bring it down. Your matter was duly dealt with by the high court and a strong judgment was issued. We have to ensure the safety of women judicial officers,' the bench said during the hearing. The court also took note of the testimony given under oath by the woman magistrate, who corroborated the charges. 'Look at the kind of language you have used. How will judges work if we entertain your petition?' the bench asked. In its brief order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted Rathore two weeks to surrender. The case dates back to October 2015, when Rathore, aggrieved by an adjournment in his case that was passed in his absence, verbally abused a woman magistrate in Karkardooma court, including using gender-specific slurs. The incident prompted the judicial officer to lodge an FIR at Farsh Bazar police station. In 2023, a trial court found Rathore guilty under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code -- 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 189 (threat of injury to a public servant), and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) -- and sentenced him to two years in jail. The high court, while upholding the conviction in May 2025, modified the sentence to 18 months. In her May 26 judgment, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the high court minced no words in rejecting Rathore's plea for leniency. She observed that 'the act of outraging the modesty of a judicial officer while she was presiding over court proceedings… attacks the very foundation of judicial decorum and institutional integrity.' Justice Sharma emphasised that Rathore, being an officer of the court, was expected to uphold its dignity, not undermine it. 'This is not merely a case of individual misbehaviour, but a case where injustice was done to justice itself where a judge… became the target of personal attack while discharging her official duties.' The judgment went on to highlight the larger systemic issue: 'Any act that seeks to threaten or intimidate a judge, especially through gender-specific abuse, is an assault on justice itself and must be met with firm accountability. To trivialise such conduct under the garb of emotional outburst or momentary lapse is to reflect a patriarchal mindset — one that struggles to respect women in authority and seeks to normalise the unacceptable. This cannot be permitted. Not in law. Not in court.' Calling the woman magistrate's experience a reflection of 'a mindset where even women in empowered roles are not seen as immune from humiliation or indignity,' the high court warned that no judicial officer, especially women at the district level who form the 'backbone of our justice delivery system,' should ever feel unsupported or unsafe. 'If a woman holding judicial office is made to feel that her authority is conditional on the civility or restraint of others, the very foundation of judicial independence would get shaken,' Justice Sharma wrote.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC to examine plea against Batla House demolition today
New Delhi: Delhi High Court is likely to examine on Wednesday a plea against the proposed demolition of alleged illegal constructions in southeast Delhi's Batla House. Earlier, a bench of Justices Girish Kathpalia and Tejas Karia declined to grant an immediate stay on a public interest litigation filed by AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, challenging the exercise. The court said on Monday that it would examine the matter on June 11, the day of the scheduled demolition, as the matter came up after 6pm. "For submissions on two issues, list the petition on June 11. We are not going to stay it (for now) because we are told that the Supreme Court has declined…" the bench remarked. It also pointed out that the single judge already granted interim relief to several persons in their petitions, but the case at hand was filed in public interest. Justice Karia, while presiding as a single judge earlier on Monday, granted status quo to certain residents. He noted that a similar relief was granted last week and asked Delhi Development Authority to file its response to the new plea in four weeks. The three petitioners before the single judge were challenging the demolition notice passed on May 26 by DDA. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Khan before the division bench, said the demolition was scheduled for June 11 and urged the court to grant a stay. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo The DDA counsel opposed the plea, saying the petitioner was just an MLA and not an affected party, and Supreme Court already declined protection to the alleged affected parties. HC said it would hear the parties on June 11 and examine if a division bench could deal with the plea when one of the two judges sitting in the bench heard similar petitions by some persons and granted certain reliefs. Demolition notices were affixed on the properties with unauthorised construction following the apex court's directions. On May 7, SC passed an order directing the demolition of alleged illegal constructions.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Bolsonaro denies coup plot, admits post-election power talks
BRASILIA, June 10 -(reuters) Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro denied that he led an attempt to overthrow the government after losing the 2022 election during his trial before the country's Supreme Court on Tuesday, but acknowledged taking part in meetings aimed at reversing the said he and senior aides discussed alternatives to accepting the electoral results, including the possibility of deploying military forces and suspending some civil liberties, but he said those proposals were soon feeling was that there was nothing else we could do. We had to swallow the election results," the ex-president said. "I never acted against the Constitution," Bolsonaro added, holding a copy of the country's 1988 charter that re-established democracy after two decades of military March, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case against Bolsonaro and seven other people, including several military officers, who were charged with plotting a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking office in January charges stem from a two-year police investigation into the election-denying movement that culminated in riots by Bolsonaro supporters in the capital in early 2023, a week after Lula took who was the sixth defendant to testify in the case, spent several minutes of his two hours of testimony defending his administration's achievements and his criticism of the country's electoral of witnesses were previously heard by the court, an indication that the case is moving swiftly and could be concluded by the end of the year, avoiding overlap with campaigning for the 2026 presidential has insisted he will run in that campaign, despite an electoral court decision barring him from seeking public office until Monday, Bolsonaro attended the trial to watch testimony from Mauro Cid, his former aide turned whistleblower, and then shook his told the court that the former president reviewed a draft decree that was central to the coup plot and made changes, while keeping a section that ordered the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is now overseeing the case against Bolsonaro and his Tuesday, the former president said he only briefly saw the draft decree and never edited it. He also apologized for making unfounded corruption allegations about Supreme Court justices."Forgive me," he told Moraes.A final ruling on Bolsonaro's case is expected by Watch
