In a powerful intervention upholding India’s environmental rule of law, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the large-scale overnight deforestation in Kancha Gachibowli, Hyderabad—where approximately 400 acres of dense greenery were razed using 30 bulldozers, reportedly by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC), under the pretext of “sustainable development.”
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, expressed deep concern over the blatant disregard for due process and environmental safeguards. In a sharp rebuke, CJI Gavai remarked:
“I advocate sustainable development, but that doesn’t mean you employ 30 bulldozers overnight and destroy all the jungle.”
The Court imposed an immediate status quo, halting further activity at the site and directing a joint inspection by the CEC and the Registrar General of the High Court of Telangana. It warned of contempt proceedings and even temporary imprisonment for errant officials if restoration wasn’t undertaken swiftly and transparently.
Some of the essential facts of the case are:
– The CEC’s earlier report classified 60–70% of the site as medium to dense forest.
– Over 1,400 trees had already been felled—without proper permissions, clearances, or an EIA.
– Public outrage, led by students, activists, and environmentalists, brought national attention to the issue, prompting judicial intervention.
The Telangana government, in its defence, argued that the land was not officially a “notified forest,” and claimed work had already been suspended. But the Court was unconvinced, emphasising that unnotified does not mean unprotected—especially when the land bore all ecological features of a forest.
The rulings became vital as they are not merely a reprimand—it’s a constitutional reaffirmation of environmental justice and sustainable governance. It reasserts that forests are not administrative grey zones to be cleared in the name of development. Instead, they are critical ecological assets, protected not just by the Forest Conservation Act, but by the principles of intergenerational equity and the right to life under Article 21. The Court’s response also sparks a broader reflection:
a. What qualifies as “sustainable development”?
b. Can states bypass environmental norms under vague public interest claims?
Where do we draw the line between growth and irreversible ecological loss?
In conclusion, the Kancha Gachibowli case is a defining moment in India’s environmental jurisprudence. It stands as a bold judicial stance against administrative overreach, a defence of ecological commons, and a reminder that the Constitution does not permit bulldozers to precede environmental clearances. Forests, the Court reminded us, are not just patches of land—they are living legacies.
Forests Are Not Real Estate’: Supreme Court Halts Bulldozers in Kancha Gachibowli Deforestation Case
