Versova-Bhayandar coastal road: SC refuses to interfere with Bombay HC order on mangrove trees

The court was hearing a plea by NGO Vanasakthi, which vehemently argued that the land identified by the project proponent for the afforestation was 10 km away and was already under compensatory afforestation for some other project.

“The 31 hectares where they say they will carry out compensatory afforestation, they got the permission for it on December 12, 2025, so they couldn’t have carried it out…have annexed the satellite images taken on October 10, 2025, two months before the HC which show the…trenches already on that 31 hectares. That’s a prior afforestation. They are just repurposing an existing afforestation. That land is already under an afforestation programme…It’s an eye wash,” senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for the NGO, told the bench.

He added that the petitioner was not against the project but only trying to minimise the number of mangroves being cut. “If some mangroves can be saved…. Mangroves absorb CO2 more than five times that of a normal forest…They take at least 100 years to grow. Mumbai is saved from floods every year because of them”.

The CJI said while environment protection norms should be vigorously enforced, the HC had also spoken about the need for ensuring the delicate balance with development.

Singh said permission is being sought to fell more trees than the 9,000 needed for the project. “They are asking for permission for 9,000 to be permanently cut and the rest for the purpose of the project. Which means they want to fell an area where they can do various ancillary works regarding the project, like keeping the construction material etc.” He added that the ancillary activities can be done in any other area.

He pointed out that the HC had only said “it is a policy matter and that we go on hope and pray that they will abide.” Singh said he is not saying the project should not be done but only pointing out that no expert body has looked at the extent of what needs to be cut down.

Singh said, “The HC goes on the basis that there is in-situ reforestation. But it is 10 kms away, in an area which already has mangroves. It’s not in situ. So there is no compensatory afforestation worth the name. Nobody has looked at this.”

“They came to the HC at the last minute and said they have already paid the money, now give us permission. So they presented the HC with a fait accompli. We only want some expert body to look at how to minimise this. The mangroves won’t grow for another 100 years,” Singh added.

Justice Bagchi said the stage 1 clearance was subject to some conditions.

The judge added, “Concern about reforestations playing of mangroves is a concern which is genuine because this is the condition known as which stage 1 clearance has been given and upon permission of the HIgh Court, stage 2 clearance has been given. So this is inviolable.”

“On the aspect that you are canvassing whether removal of so many mangrove plantations was reasonable or not, the HC is of the opinion that this is an expert assessment of the sustainable development marker,” said Justice Bagchi.

“There has been none…No expert assessment has been done of this quantum at all. No alternate alignment has been looked at…The Environment (Protection) Act allows them to look at alternate arrangements also which should minimise the damage,” said Singh.

Justice Bagchi said, “It’s not within the domain of the HC. The HC really tests the development policy on two parameters — (a) whether it’s in public interest…that no man grieves should be removed except when there is overbearing public interest. Now it’s not your case that this connecting road is not in public interest….”.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Bombay Municipal Corporation said, “The HC has been careful.” The judgment, he pointed out, says authorities before it jointly submitted that “they are willing to comply with any additional condition that the HC may deem appropriate to ensure that the replantation of mangroves and commentary afforestation achieves the intended growth and survival.”

He added that the HC had also directed them to to file an interim application on a yearly basis with comprehensive status and audit reports with affidavits signed by the petitioner through the Municipal Commissioner…and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Nagpur, every year, for the next 10 years on or before January 12, “so as to ensure that the plantation, maintenance and protection of mangroves is effectively implemented.”

When Justice Bagchi pointed out that HC had said that compensatory afforestation must be carried out simultaneously or even before hand, Mehta said “we have started” the process.

Countering this, Singh then said the land identified for afforestation was already under afforestation for another project.

The CJi said he can point it out when the first report as per the HC direction is submitted.

“When they submit the first report to the HC, you can point out this…”, he said.

The SC also said it cannot second guess the matter when experts have given an opinion.

“HC doesn’t pass the order on the ipse dixit of the project proponent. HC also sees the stage 1 EC which is subject to conditions. HC ensures compliance and passes the order,” said Justice Bagchi.