THE SUPREME COURT ON TUESDAY sounded a grave warning about the “serious existential crisis” confronting the Himalayan states, particularly Himachal Pradesh, owing to unplanned development and reckless exploitation of natural resources. In a slew of directions, the Court asked the Himachal Pradesh government to explain how its development policies were impacting the fragile ecosystem, while seeking comprehensive data on projects, deforestation, climate change, disaster management and tourism.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted the havoc wreaked during the current monsoon, which has brought unprecedented rainfall, floods, and landslides. “This monsoon season has seen unprecedented rain causing havoc in the fragile ecosystem of Himachal Pradesh. The deluge which has struck in various areas has caused widespread damage to life and property,” the bench remarked in its order.
It said that scores of lives had been lost and thousands of homes, both permanent and temporary, were destroyed. “A large number of homes/permanent structures/temporary buildings have been washed away or swept under the destructive landslides which have struck the state during this period,” the Bench stated.
In a slew of directions, the Court asked the Himachal Pradesh government to explain how its development policies were impacting the fragile ecosystem.
The judges warned that the problem was not confined to Himachal Pradesh alone. “Evidently, the state of Himachal Pradesh and, for that matter, all the states in the Himalayan region are facing a serious existential crisis,” the order underlined.
The court recorded a series of questions prepared by amicus curiae K. Parameshwar, senior advocate, who is assisting the court. It sought from the Principal Secretary of the Forest Department, by way of an affidavit by October 28, a detailed account of:
The designated forest area in the state and the extent diverted for non-forest use in the last 20 years.
Changes in tree cover and forest cover across Himachal Pradesh during the past two decades.
Permissions granted in the last decade for felling 500 or more trees by private entities or PSUs, along with details of illegal felling cases and prosecutions.
The number of trees planted under compensatory afforestation by the state, PSUs and private entities in the last 20 years.
The Court also demanded information on whether zoning has been carried out based on seismic activity, landslide-prone zones, green cover and eco-sensitivity, and whether ecological sites have been earmarked to prohibit industrialisation or mega projects.
It further asked whether the state has framed a climate change policy and what measures, if any, have been adopted to mitigate damages pre-emptively.
The bench was categorical that the root cause of disasters was not nature alone but human activity. “It was observed that humans, not nature, are responsible for phenomena such as continuous landslides, collapsing of houses and buildings, subsidence of roads, etc.,” the order noted. Expert reports, it added, had flagged hydropower projects, four-lane roads, rampant deforestation, and multi-storey construction as key contributors to widespread destruction.
The Court called for a comprehensive report on:
Disaster management plans framed by the state, their implementation status, and funds allocated and utilised in the last 20 years.
The number of state and national highways, with details of existing four-lane stretches, ongoing and proposed projects, and permissions for tree felling and blasting.
The total number of rivers in Himachal Pradesh and hydroelectric projects operating on each, with dates of commissioning.
The extent of mining operations/leases currently active, those awaiting approval, and their ecological impact.
Permissions granted over the last 10 years for hotels, industries and short-term rentals, especially in eco-sensitive areas.
Tourism, the Court had noted, though a vital revenue source, was exerting unsustainable pressure on natural resources.
The bench also pressed for details of measures taken to regulate tourism, especially during peak monsoon months, and systems to monitor tourist inflows so that the ecological load did not overwhelm the state’s carrying capacity.
The latest order comes after repeated judicial warnings about Himachal Pradesh’s vulnerability. On July 28, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had cautioned that the state might “vanish in thin air” if current trends continued. That bench had flagged the role of climate change, unregulated tourism, hydropower projects and highway expansion in accelerating ecological decline, and had directed the registry to register a suo motu writ petition in public interest.
Tourism, the Court had noted, though a vital revenue source, was exerting unsustainable pressure on natural resources. “The uncontrolled growth of tourism is straining the environment,” the bench had observed.
The Supreme Court said that both the state and the Centre had an obligation to ensure that the fragile Himalayan ecology was not sacrificed at the altar of unplanned development. “Humans, not nature, are responsible,” the order stressed, while underscoring that unchecked hydropower projects, extensive road-widening, and reckless construction were destabilising the environment.
By directing Himachal Pradesh to account for its policies and actions, the bench has put the spotlight squarely on the long-standing tension between development imperatives and ecological survival in the Himalayan belt. The answers, due in October, are expected to shape future judicial scrutiny over how the state balances growth with environmental sustainability.