WHAT HAPPENS when a government prioritises economic growth over protecting the environment? The Telangana government's goal to auction off 400 acres of land near Hyderabad Central University has kicked off a heated protest by residents of the HCU Campus. On April 3, five days after the government began clearing vast tracks of the Kancha Gachibowli forest, the Supreme Court ordered an interim stay on the tree felling and directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Telangana High Court to inspect the spot and provide a report. The top Court will hear the case on April 16.
A batch of PILs have also been filed by the HCU students union and other civil rights stakeholders contesting the clearance granted to raze the forest for the state’s ambitious IT infrahub project.
To set out at the forefront, this is not just about who owns the piece of land – it is more about how far state power tends to go when dealing with areas rich in plant and animal life, especially when the power is unchecked.
The key point to be considered here is that the land at the center of this fight is buzzing with biodiversity. So how does the government defend this auction? It does so by pointing to a 2022 High Court ruling that gave the state ownership over the land because HCU never seemed to have gotten an official deed for the property, and thus the scales have tipped vastly in favour of the State in this regard.
But this misses what really matters - who owns the land should really not be more important than what the land does for our ecosystem. The area in question has been a safe haven for biodiversity for years now. Even if one argues that the government owns it, they are still bound by the effects of the conservation legal framework in India.
Now what do these laws in question say? Our laws display no ambiguity when prescribing about protecting the environment. Article 48A of the Constitution, a directive principle of state policy, directs the government to "protect and improve the environment, and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." While I do not dispute the fact that our courts cannot directly enforce this directive principle of state policy, it has definitely shaped how judges think about environmental cases, and thereafter, due weight should be accorded to them.
Our courts have time and again linked this specific principle to Article 21. Just last year, in M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court placed due emphasis on recognising a right against the adverse effects of climate change, noting that it was an extension of the right to life. This leads one to the obvious conclusion that destroying the biodiversity rich land in question is not just bad for the plants and the animals, but it comes strikingly close to violating our own constitutional rights (should one prefer to give more value to anthropocentric arguments).
The Supreme Court, over the years, has also established that what really matters is how land functions ecologically, not merely what it seems to convey on paper. In the landmark decision of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (1996), our judges have broadened what counts as a "forest" to the dictionary meaning of the word - essentially to include any land that works like a forest regardless of the official label it has been assigned.
This matters a lot for the grief stricken HCU land. Even if one should say that it is not officially classified as a forest, the sheer amount of biodiversity it has hosted and continues to host says otherwise - which means it should most definitely fall under the ambit of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The state would blunder heavily should it choose to ignore this framework, as they would not just be skipping over red tape but would primarily be undermining the well established principle that we must protect such areas no matter who owns them. Furthermore, by not getting central government approval before changing the entire fabric of this land and determining that it is has a better future as an IT Park (which Hyderabad has no shortage of) the State is stepping over some risky lines, likely breaking forest protection laws and also setting a dangerous precedent.
The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is also especially relevant to us - the land in question is home to several protected species listed under Schedule I of the Act. This means that as per Section 9 of the WPA, it is forbidden to cause any harm to these creatures, and similarly, Section 29 limits activities that could damage their habitats – something that clearing up the land of all its fauna is already doing. Given that the trees are already being cut down ahead of the auction, the Telangana government seems to be quite proactive in breaking these laws. On top of that, the Environmental Protection Act requires a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for projects affecting biodiversity such as this. Yet, the government has allegedly not shown any sign of completing or conveying one for this auction plan of theirs.
The importance of these requirements is not to be overlooked. For instance, in Electrosteel Steels Limited (2021), the Supreme Court emphasized that such assessments were crucial in the interest of balancing the environment with the economy. Without an EIA, the government has very little ground to stand on when justifying such massive environmental destruction. The Supreme Court has directed the Chief Secretary of Telangana to file responses on whether the state had conducted an EIA.
The government's decision goes against the crucial Public Trust Doctrine. This doctrine states that the government holds a state’s natural resources in trust for its citizens and definitely not to sell off for private gain. The Supreme Court has established this principle as clear as daylight in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996), ruling that states are supposed to act as trustees of environmental resources and cannot just privatise them on their own unjustified whims. It is important to remember here that the HCU land performs vital ecological activities
The Supreme Court has reinforced the same idea in Lal Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017), once again stressing that green spaces in cities require a good deal of protection from commercial development. What the enforcement of environmental rules requires is an open and structured manner of decision making, and that means that the State must also work on getting input from the public and assessing impacts from all angles before even attempting to discuss how such ecologically important land is used. Skipping these safeguards not only breaks the law, but also shuts out various communities and the people who depend on such land for livelihood from having any say in what happens to it. The Telangana government's decision to auction away 400 acres of HCU's biodiverse land marks a very crucial turning point for the existing environmental frameworks in India. Their actions evidently clash with constitutional requirements, environmental laws, and also court decisions that put ecological preservation at the forefront. The missing impact assessment, possible violations of wildlife protection laws, and utter disregard for the public trust doctrine, all cast doubt on whether this auction should really be allowed to proceed in the manner it has gone about.
