sc-halts-felling-of-apple-orchards-in-himachal

The Supreme Court has stayed a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that had allowed cutting down apple orchards growing on encroached forest land in the state. However, the bench, headed by Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria, said the Himachal government could still take over the encroached forest land and auction the apple crop, just without cutting the trees.

 

The decision came after a petition by former Shimla deputy mayor Tikender Singh Panwar and advocate Rajiv Rai, who warned that destroying these orchards would cause lasting environmental and socio-economic damage in the fragile Himalayan region.

 

The Supreme Court has asked the state government and other parties to respond by September 16. Himachal’s Advocate General Anup Kumar Rattan shared that the state government had also filed a petition against the High Court’s decision, which will now be heard together with this case.

 

The bench was informed that implementing the HC order will lead to destroying 50,000 to one lakh apple trees across the state, out of which around 5,000 have already been brought down in Shimla district, petitioner's counsel Subhash Chandran KR said.

 

They argued that felling trees during the monsoon could worsen the landslides and soil erosion, serious risks in an area that’s already prone to natural disasters. The apple orchards, they said, not only help hold the soil together but also provide homes for wildlife and support thousands of farming families. Losing these orchards, they warned, could harm both the environment and people’s right to earn a living.

 

They added that the destruction of these apple orchards threatened not only environmental stability but also the fundamental right to livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

Instead of cutting down the trees, the petitioners suggested that the government should take over the orchards, auction the fruit and timber, or use the income for farmer groups or disaster relief initiatives.

 

They also pointed out that the High Court order disregarded the Supreme Court precedents that stress on the state's obligation to safeguard citizens' livelihoods, particularly in regions where agriculture is a primary economic activity.