We’re Not Authorised’: Supreme Court Vacation Bench Declines Urgent Hearing of Plea Against Felling of 875 Trees in Himachal Pradesh

In a move that has stirred environmental concerns, the Supreme Court’s vacation bench on June 3, 2025, declined to urgently hear a plea seeking a stay on the felling of 875 trees in Himachal Pradesh for a road-widening project. The bench, comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan, expressed helplessness, stating:
"We are not authorised to hear this. Please approach the appropriate bench."

The fact: What’s at Stake?

The case revolves around the widening of the road from PWD Rest House, Bhont, to the famous Tara Devi temple in Shimla. As part of the project, the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department has reportedly given clearance to axe 875 trees, many of which are decades old and vital to the hill state's fragile ecosystem.

An environmental activist had rushed to the Supreme Court, filing a petition to stop the imminent deforestation, arguing that the state was ignoring long-term ecological consequences for short-term infrastructure gains. The activist pleaded that this felling would permanently damage Shimla’s delicate green cover and exacerbate landslide risks, especially during monsoons.

Supreme Court's Stand: "Vacation Bench Has Limitations"

Despite the urgency and emotional appeal of the petition, the vacation bench stated that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. The judges maintained that such issues are required to be placed before the regular bench, especially since it involves an ongoing environmental matter already being monitored or scheduled before another bench.

The vacation bench told the petitioner:

“We understand your concerns, but we simply don’t have the authority. Kindly move a mentioning application before the CJI or the appropriate regular bench.”

This statement, while procedural, has left environmentalists disheartened. With each passing day, more trees risk being felled—and time is not on nature’s side.

Voices of Concern: Environmentalists React

The news has triggered an outcry among local activists and conservation groups. Many believe that administrative urgency should not override environmental caution, especially in ecologically sensitive hill areas like Shimla.

A local conservationist said:

“The Himalayas are already under stress due to reckless construction. Cutting down hundreds of trees for road expansion without exploring alternatives is a crime against future generations.”

Government’s View: Development vs. Environment

Officials from the Himachal Pradesh PWD (Public Works Department) argue that the road-widening project is essential for tourist access, decongestion, and emergency transport to the Tara Devi temple—one of the region’s major spiritual destinations.

But critics argue that the model of ‘development’ needs rethinking. Better traffic planning, rerouting, or using ropeways or eco-friendly options could serve the same purpose without harming the environment irreversibly.

What Happens Next?

The petitioner is now expected to approach the Chief Justice of India or a regular bench once the court resumes full operations. Meanwhile, environmental groups are mobilising on social media and on-ground protests to halt the felling.

Until then, the trees stand in silence—waiting.

In Conclusion: This case is a stark reminder of how India's legal and environmental systems must balance urgency with authority, and development with sustainability. For now, it is not just a legal matter—it's about the soul of our forests and the spirit of our mountains.