New Delhi: After the Punjab and Haryana High Court described Punjab government’s newly enacted tree protection law as “draconian” and warned that its provisions could destroy the state’s already limited green cover, Punjab has decided to keep the implementation of the law in abeyance.
The bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor Saturday questioned the mechanism under the new law, observing that permissions could be granted through a deemed-approval process, with applicants required to pay the prescribed charges. It warned that such an approach could destroy the state’s already fragile green cover.
The observations came while the court was hearing a challenge to the Punjab Protection of Trees Act, 2026, in a batch of public interest litigations (PILs) concerning tree felling in Punjab and Haryana.
The bench said it was prepared to examine the merits of the legislation and indicated that the state should reconsider its provisions. It also pointed out that the court had already prepared detailed guidelines for authorities responsible for granting tree-felling permissions, but the introduction of the new law had prompted it to revisit the issue.
In response to the court’s strong remarks on 31 October, the Punjab government counsel told the Chief Justice’s bench Monday that it would not implement the law as long as the case is pending before the court.
ThePrint explains the law and the court’s concerns.
How the dispute began
The litigation originated in December 2025, when Mohali resident Praneet Kaur approached the high court challenging a proposal to cut 251 mature trees in SAS Nagar, Mohali.
The trees were to be removed to make way for the construction of roundabouts and rotaries at various junctions along the PR-7 road. The project was being undertaken by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA).
The petition challenged the tender issued for auctioning the right to cut the trees, arguing that their removal for infrastructure development would adversely affect the environment.
The issue soon expanded beyond the proposed felling in Mohali.
On 24 December 2025, a division bench led by then Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry prohibited the cutting of any tree, irrespective of its age or species, anywhere in Punjab, without the court’s permission until further orders.
The bench cited Punjab’s forest cover of 3.67 percent of its geographical area, observing that it was even lower than Rajasthan’s 4.87 percent. It expressed concern that the state authorities did not appear conscious of the impending ecological damage.
As applications seeking permission to fell trees continued to reach the court, its intervention was subsequently extended to Haryana as well.
The court referred to the India State of Forest Report 2023, which put the forest and tree cover figures for Punjab and Haryana at 3.67 percent and 3.65 percent respectively. Both were significantly below the national average of 25.17 percent and the 33 percent benchmark envisaged under the National Forest Policy, 1988.
But this led to confusion while executing regular developmental works like road widening or developmental work.
Why is Punjab’s new law being challenged?
The controversy resurfaced after Punjab enacted the Punjab Protection of Trees Act, 2026, on 24 September, replacing the Trees Preservation Policy for Non-Forest Government and Public Lands, 2024.
The new legislation establishes a mechanism under which applications for tree felling are considered by designated Tree Protection Officers. It also provides for prescribed charges, compensatory plantation and penalties for violations.
However, petitioners have argued that the new framework dilutes safeguards available under the earlier policy.
One of their principal objections concerns the provision for deemed permission. Under the Act, an officer is required to decide ordinary tree-felling applications within 30 days and applications concerning dead or fallen trees within seven days. If no decision is taken within the stipulated period, permission is deemed to have been granted.
The petitioners contend that such a mechanism could allow trees to be felled without adequate scrutiny, particularly when government agencies themselves are seeking permission for infrastructure projects.
Another objection concerns the appointment of executive officers of local urban bodies as Tree Protection Officers.
The petitioners have argued that municipal corporations and urban development authorities, including GMADA, are often involved in executing infrastructure projects that require tree removal. Appointing officials from these bodies as the authorities responsible for deciding tree-felling applications, they contend, creates a potential conflict of interest.
They have also questioned whether officials primarily involved in urban administration and infrastructure development have the specialised expertise required to assess the ecological impact of removing mature trees.
The petitioners have further pointed out that the 2024 policy covered both urban and rural areas, whereas the new legislation is restricted to urban areas. They argue that this leaves rural tree felling outside the regulatory framework established by the new Act.
The high court has not yet adjudicated these objections or ruled on the validity of the legislation.
Haryana waits for court’s guidelines
The proceedings have also affected Haryana’s proposed legislation on tree protection.
The Haryana government had prepared a draft Haryana Preservation of Trees Act, 2026, which, according to the high court’s order, is substantially modelled on Punjab’s new legislation.
During Saturday’s hearing in the case, Haryana’s Advocate General told the bench that the state would finalise the proposed law only after examining the guidelines issued by the court.
The state said it wanted to ensure that the legislation protected the environment while also addressing developmental requirements.
This is significant because the court’s proposed guidelines could influence the regulatory framework adopted by both states.
The bench had earlier indicated that it intended to frame detailed guidelines for authorities granting permission to fell trees, instead of passing separate orders on the numerous applications before it.
However, the introduction of Punjab’s new legislation in September complicated that exercise, prompting the court to seek the state’s response before proceeding further.
With the Punjab government informing the court that it has put the law in abeyance, and Haryana having already set aside its proposed legislation, it remains to be seen how the matter unfolds in the coming days.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: ‘Scientifically unsound’. Conservators flag ecological blind spots in govt’s report on forests