Activists Decry Apparent Pattern of Destruction Within Sanjay Gandhi National Park

On the twenty‑first day of May, a coalition of local environmental activists publicly asserted that the successive removal of mature trees and the unauthorized encroachment of construction within the bounds of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park constitute a discernible and systematic pattern of destruction that implicates municipal authorities and their regulatory commissions.

The Sanjay Gandhi National Park, encompassing roughly fourteen hundred hectares of mixed deciduous forest, designated as a protected ecological zone under the 1972 National Parks Act, has historically served as a vital green lung for the metropolis, providing recreational space for millions while sustaining biodiversity that includes several endangered avian species and native fauna.

On the fifth of May, municipal crews, ostensibly acting under the direction of the City Development Authority, commenced the demolition of a series of fifty‑two old wooden kiosks and the felling of approximately three hundred and ninety‑seven mature trees along the eastern fringe of the park, citing an urgent need to widen the arterial Link Road 12 in order to alleviate projected traffic congestion forecasted for the year 2030.

The municipal commissioner, in a press briefing held two days later, reiterated that the clearance operations had been conducted in strict accordance with all applicable statutes, emphasizing that an internal audit had validated the legality of the permits and that any allegations of impropriety were therefore unfounded and politically motivated.

Local residents, many of whom had relied upon the shaded walkways and community gardens afforded by the previously intact vegetation for daily exercise, reported a marked increase in ambient temperature, heightened air‑pollution levels, and a palpable sense of loss that they attributed directly to the abrupt removal of the park’s arboreal canopy.

In response, the coalition known as the Citizens for Urban Greenery filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking an injunction that would halt further deforestation pending a comprehensive environmental impact review and demanding that the municipal body disclose all correspondence relating to the clearance permits issued over the past twelve months.

If municipal statutes require that any alteration to protected forest land receive prior approval from the State Department of Forest Conservation, then why does the recorded sequence of permits, issued without public notice, appear to contravene both the letter and spirit of said statutes, thereby raising doubts about procedural integrity? Should the municipal engineering department, charged with overseeing road‑widening schemes, not have been compelled to conduct an environmental impact assessment that satisfies internationally recognised criteria, instead of proceeding with the clearance of over three hundred ninety‑six trees, as documented in the recent municipal ledger? Does the apparent reliance on a series of ad‑hoc judicial orders, ostensibly issued to expedite public utility projects, not reveal a deeper institutional predisposition to prioritize short‑term infrastructural gains over long‑term ecological stewardship, thereby undermining the very public trust that underlies democratic governance? Might the absence of a transparent grievance‑redressal mechanism, as prescribed by the Municipal Corporations Act of 2014, be construed as a statutory omission that effectively denies affected residents a lawful avenue to contest the purportedly illegal clearance activities within the park's protected perimeter?

In light of the documented fiscal allocations exceeding two hundred crore rupees for the alleged “green‑belt revitalisation” project, which nonetheless coincides chronologically with the recent tree‑felling operations, should auditors not be mandated to examine whether public funds have been misapplied to subsidise private development interests against the explicit prohibitions of the National Park Protection Ordinance? Could the municipal council's sworn declaration that the clearances were undertaken “in full compliance with statutory requirements” be subject to judicial scrutiny, given the apparent absence of any recorded public hearing, environmental clearance certificate, or independent third‑party verification as mandated by the Urban Planning and Conservation Act? Might the recurring reliance on emergency ordinances, invoked without clear justification, be interpreted as an erosion of the principle of proportionality that underlies administrative law, thereby inviting challenges on the grounds that the municipal authority exceeded its lawful discretion in sanctioning irreversible ecological harm? Should the resident associations, whose petitions have repeatedly been dismissed as “administrative oversights,” not be afforded the procedural safeguard of mandatory judicial review to ensure that the municipal executive’s actions are not insulated from accountability by a veneer of bureaucratic finality?

Published: May 20, 2026

Published: May 20, 2026