The Punjab Protection of Trees Act, 2026 has come under heavy scrutiny, with the Punjab and Haryana High Court calling the new law “draconian”. Numerous public interest litigations have been filed to stop the indiscriminate felling of trees. There is nothing wrong with taking the legal route for the protection of trees, but many of these petitions have failed to address what could be the most destructive part of the new Act: its definition of a ‘tree’.
Under the Punjab government’s new legislation, the felling of trees is regulated through a permit requirement, with penalties stipulated for unlawful cutting. However, this only works if the definition of a tree is well thought out. The law says that for a woody plant to qualify as a tree under this Act, its trunk must have a girth of at least 35 cm at ground level.
This may make sense on paper, but it completely defeats the purpose of the law, which is to protect trees. The law essentially allows plants with a girth of less than 35 cm to be felled without requiring permission under this Act. This includes saplings and young trees. A tree will not reach a girth of 35 cm until it is 3-6 years old — or older, depending on the species, soil quality and rainfall. This leaves young trees extremely vulnerable.
This creates a problem with the law. Each year, the government, local organisations, civil society groups and members of the public come together to undertake large-scale tree planting. They plant millions of saplings along canals, roadsides and in urban and rural areas. All of this is funded by public money and celebrated by the public. However, once planted, these saplings are not protected under the new law because they do not meet the minimum girth requirement of 35 cm.
The law is fundamentally going against its own aim. It is protecting the grandfathers of our forests while leaving the babies unprotected. If only mature trees are protected, it means young trees and saplings are treated as plants that can simply be cut and vandalised at will. If a developer, contractor or local organisation cuts down a two-year-old sapling to build a road verge or a structure, no offence is committed under this Act. The pity is that These poor saplings simply do not qualify as trees under the law.
What PILs should argue
This should have been the main reason for approaching the High Court. Since the petitioners have approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental right to a clean environment under Article 21, they should also be arguing that the law is arbitrary and unreasonable under Article 14. If the law does not protect trees when they are young, there is no reasonable connection between the law and its stated objective. If the aim is to protect and increase greenery, it is irrational not to protect the trees that will create that greenery in the future.
Unfortunately, the PILs have missed this issue and focused on other concerns, such as delays in granting permits and the absence of adequate workforce for tree protection. By not addressing the 35 cm girth issue, the petitioners have left a loophole in place that allows millions of saplings to be cut down. While a court ruling may stop people from cutting down mature trees, the future of our green cover is under a very dark cloud.
A proper PIL needs to challenge the definition of a tree as arbitrary and unreasonable. The law needs to be changed to include a definition that requires saplings and young trees to be protected in public tree-planting areas, compensatory afforestation areas and green spaces, regardless of their size. Secondly, the PIL should argue that the law goes against the public trust doctrine. Natural resources should be seen as being held in trust by the state. This responsibility also extends to the future environment, which depends on the survival of saplings planted today. PILs need to emphasise that the Act should cover all rural areas because urban areas, which the Act covers, only account for 4.2 per cent of Punjab’s total area.
A court ruling is needed to ensure that the legislature changes the definition of trees to bring it in line with modern forestry practices. Trees are generally defined based on land use rather than the size of their trunks. By defining trees based on a minimum trunk girth, the law gives entities seeking to clear land an incentive to cut down young trees before they reach the prescribed size .
Punjab’s environment is very fragile. Due to intensive farming, rapid development and urbanisation, the state’s forest cover has fallen to one of the lowest levels in the country. Laws such as the Punjab Protection of Trees Act were meant to show a change in attitude towards the environment. However, by defining trees as those with a girth of at least 35 cm, the law leaves a massive hole in the centre of our shield. Until the PILs recognise and address this fundamental flaw in the law, the annual tree-planting efforts in Punjab will be pointless.
Col Jasjit Singh Gill (retd) is an environmentalist. He is a member of the DISHA Committee, Ludhiana, and a former member of the Punjab State Task Force on Budha Darya Rejuvenation Project. He tweets @JASSGILL44. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)