Now Reading: SC seeks response on felling 124 trees for film institute in Mumbai
-
01
SC seeks response on felling 124 trees for film institute in Mumbai
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea by the Tree Authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking permission to fell 124 trees and translocate 333 others for…
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea by the Tree Authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai seeking permission to fell 124 trees and translocate 333 others for the proposed Indian Institute of Creative Technologies campus at Mumbai's Film City. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana gave the Maharashtra government, petitioners and intervenors two weeks to respond.
Senior advocate Dhruv Mehta told the court the project was of eminent national importance and the plot was inside Film City, not the Aarey forest area. He said the application was filed as abundant caution after the court's January 2025 order barred tree felling in Aarey Colony without its leave. The project proponent has obtained environmental clearance and undertaken to plant 5,000 trees as compensatory afforestation.
NGO Vanashakti opposed the plea, arguing that no suitability study or alternative site assessment had been done. It questioned whether a film institute could be equated with essential infrastructure like roads. The court observed that for projects of national importance, a balance could be struck by entrusting compensatory afforestation to an independent agency. The matter will be heard again after two weeks.
Indian Opinion Analysis
The coverage is uniform straight reporting. All three sources agree on the core facts: 124 trees to be felled, 333 transplanted, the court seeking responses within two weeks, and the CJI calling the project one of 'eminent national importance'. Livemint and Barandbench give fuller space to Vanashakti's objections on suitability studies and the larger deforestation question. The key unknown is what independent agency will oversee the compensatory afforestation, a point the court flagged but did not decide. The next hearing in two weeks will clarify both the agency and the project's timeline.
Coverage: 3 sources, 3 neutral
Sources (3): livelaw.in (neutral report), hindustantimes.com (neutral report), barandbench.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry.
Updated: this story now draws on 3 sources.
