Supreme Court draws clear line on Aravalli ecology, says invasive green cover not ‘forest’; upholds Bijwasan project

“Owing to rapid growth, tolerance to arid conditions and absence of natural predators, the species (Prosopis juliflora) spread extensively across parts of Delhi, often forming dense monocultures that replaced native plant communities of the Aravalli ecosystem,” said the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal on March 20.

Aravalli ecosystem in Focus

• The Supreme Court examined how invasive species like Prosopis juliflora (Vilayati Kikar), widely spread across Delhi and the Aravalli ridge, have altered the natural ecosystem in the Aravalli ecosystem.
• The subject land consists of 70 per cent trees of such invasive species which are not beneficial for maintaining ecological balance rather disrupting the native biodiversity.
• The publication titled ‘Delhi’s Forest at a Glance’ issued by the department of forest and wildlife, government of NCT of Delhi notes that largescale plantations were carried out during colonial afforestation activities to create quick green cover around the city which comes under the Aravalli ecosystem.

• During this process, exotic species such as Prosopis juliflora (Vilayati Kikar), native to Mexico and the Caribbean, were introduced without any study on impact or effect on the ecology and ecosystem.
• Such plantations initially increased tree cover in otherwise barren areas.
• Subsequent ecological experience has demonstrated that species such as Prosopis juliflora (Vilayati Kikar), native to Mexico and the Caribbean possess characteristics enabling them to dominate landscapes and displace indigenous vegetation.

Invasive growth, ecological damage

• Native vegetation comprises plant species that have evolved within a particular geographical region and form part of its natural ecological system.
• Such species sustain biodiversity and ecological balance by supporting wildlife, pollinators and soil processes while remaining adapted to local climatic and hydrological conditions.
• In contrast, invasive alien species are plants introduced from outside their natural range which tend to spread aggressively and displace indigenous vegetation.
• Scientific observations indicate that invasive species possess biological traits such as high seed production, long seed viability and expansive canopy growth.
• This enables them to outcompete surrounding vegetation and suppress native grasses and shrubs.

• Their proliferation reduces biodiversity, alters soil conditions and disturb the natural hydrological balance of the area through higher evapotranspiration and reduced groundwater recharge.
• The ecological impact extends beyond vegetation.
• The displacement of native plants disrupts the food chain dependent upon them, affecting insects, birds and herbivorous animals that rely upon indigenous species for sustenance and habitat.
• This ultimately results in declining wildlife presence and ecological imbalance.
• The material on record, therefore, indicates that the mere proliferation of vegetation, particularly where it consists of invasive alien species introduced through historical human intervention, does not necessarily signify the presence of a natural forest ecosystem.

The ruling sets a critical precedent for urban projects in ecologically sensitive regions like the Aravalli. (Image enhanced using AI)

Tree Cover ≠ Forest

• Rejecting the argument that the Bijwasan land qualified as “deemed forest“, the Supreme Court held that ecological quality, not just tree density, determines forest status.
• At this stage, it becomes necessary to advert to another aspect relevant for determining the character of land claimed to be forest, namely the nature of native/indigenous vegetation and the spread of invasive alien plant species.
• The mere presence of vegetation or tree cover cannot by itself be equated with the existence of a natural forest ecosystem.

• The court also cautioned against a mechanical application of the “deemed forest” principle evolved in T N Godavarman jurisprudence, stressing that historical land use and planning records must be considered.
• “It would be inconceivable” for agricultural or barren land to transform into forest land merely due to plantations or natural growth within a short period, the court observed.
• This finding proved decisive in dismissing the challenge to the project.

Timeline of dispute

• 1986: Land acquired as agricultural land from Bharthal village.
• 2008–09: Allotted to Railways for Bijwasan terminal project.
• 2015: Included in Master Plan for mixed-use development.

• Dec 19, 2022: Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) issued a tender for development.
• Feb 13, 2024: National Green Tribunal dismissed objections.
• Sept 17, 2024: Supreme Court ordered interim status quo.
• March 20, 2026: Final judgment delivered.

‘Master Plan’ prevails

• Affirming the NGT’s 2024 decision, the Supreme Court held that the legal character of land must be determined based on its status at the time of the Master Plan’s formulation not on later developments.
• “The sanctity and statutory binding force of the Master Plan will have primacy,” the court said.
• The top court warned that allowing subsequent vegetation growth to alter land classification would create “perpetual uncertainty” in urban planning.
• The bench clarified that the Bijwasan land was neither recorded as forest nor treated as such in official records when it was earmarked for development.
• As such, it cannot later be reclassified as “deemed forest” solely due to tree growth over time, said the Supreme Court.

• At the time of formulation of the Master Plan, the land was neither notified as forest land in the revenue records or a declared forest nor treated as deemed forest in official records.
• The relevant date for consideration and determination of the nature of the land as ‘deemed forest’ would be the date of coming into force of the Master Plan.
• A duly approved and notified Master Plan possesses statutory force and provides the governing framework for use of land and urban development.
• Its operation cannot be unsettled merely on account of subsequent changes in vegetation or tree growth, particularly where such growth includes invasive species that do not form part of a natural forest ecosystem.
• Consequently, the Master Plan must prevail, and the subject land cannot be treated as “deemed forest” and thus, no permission or sanction of the Central Government under Section 2 of the 1980 Act would be required.

Balancing development with ecology

• While clearing the project, the Supreme Court noted safeguards including 20 per cent mandatory green cover, tree transplantation measures, and compensatory afforestation.
• Authorities have also undertaken to obtain all necessary permissions before working on any patches identified as deemed forest.
• Highlighting ecological principles, the court observed, “The emphasis of environmental management, as reflected in governmental policy as well as ecological understanding, lies in the restoration and promotion of native species capable of sustaining biodiversity and ecological balance.”
  It added that replacing invasive species with indigenous trees is essential for restoring natural ecosystems and maintaining ecological balance.
• “We deem it appropriate to direct that all concerned authorities and implementing agencies shall make earnest efforts to ensure transplantation of native/indigenous trees to the maximum extent possible, and to preserve and protect existing trees and in particular, native species in and around the project area,” the Supreme Court said.

• It added that prior to the commencement of any work on the site, compensatory afforestation shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules, and guidelines, and in consonance with the permissions that may be granted by the competent authorities.
• “Therefore, for restoration of forest to its natural ecosystem, trees of native species be planted in large numbers and preferably by replacing invasive species to save and sustain the ecological balance,” the Supreme Court said.

Broader implications

• The ruling sets a critical precedent for urban projects in ecologically sensitive regions like the Aravalli.
• It reinforces that forest classification depends on ecological integrity, not just greenery in the Aravalli ecosystem.
• Invasive species cannot be the basis for legal protection as forests, especially in the Aravalli ecosystem.

• Planned development under statutory frameworks cannot be derailed by later vegetation changes in the Aravalli ecosystem.
• At its core, the judgment reframes the debate: protecting the Aravalli ecosystem is not about preserving any green cover but about restoring the native ecological systems that sustain it.

MoEF secretary panel  ‘suppressed’ FSI view on Aravalli

• Earlier this month, the Supreme Court’s Amicus Curiae in the Aravalli definition case has submitted that the report by the court’s Aravalli committee led by the Environment secretary “completely suppressed” the views of the Forest Survey of India (FSI) while recommending a 100-metre height definition for the hills.
• The Amicus Curiae’s submission on the Aravalli ecosystem also pointed out that the “unsigned and undated” report of the Aravalli panel did not have the approval of the SC’s Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and its “exclusionary” definition did not “sufficiently include landforms that constitute the Aravalli hills in order to protect and conserve the same.”

• On November 20, 2025, the SC accepted the recommendations of the Aravalli panel that any landform at an elevation of 100 metres or more above the local relief would be considered as part of Aravalli hills along with its slopes and adjacent land.
• A series of investigations by The Indian Express about during November-December 2025 reported that the Aravalli committee ignored the FSI’s warning that a 100-metre height definition would exclude 90% of Aravalli hills, that the CEC’s objection to the definition was overlooked, and that the SC itself rejected the 100-metre benchmark in 2010.

Supreme Court: SC ends with religious conversion

• On March 24, the Supreme Court held that the Scheduled Caste status is available only to Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists and that conversion to any other religion will result in “immediate and complete loss of” the caste “status from the moment of conversion regardless of birth”.
• A bench of Justices P K Mishra and Manmohan said this while upholding the April 30, 2025, order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which said that a person converting to Christianity was not entitled to SC status and the related benefits.
• “No person who professes a religion other than Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.
• This bar under Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 is categorical and absolute. Conversion to any religion not specified in Clause 3 results in immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste status from the moment of conversion regardless of birth,” it said