In a major relief to apple growers in Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a High Court order that had directed the removal of fruit-bearing apple orchards from encroached forest land, holding that the directive carried drastic socio-economic consequences for marginalised and landless communities.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the Himachal Pradesh High Court erred in ordering the removal of apple orchards, noting that such a step would severely impact vulnerable sections of society and those dependent on orchard-based livelihoods. The court observed that decisions of this nature fall squarely within the policy domain and should not result in the cutting of fruit-bearing trees without a broader welfare perspective.
While setting aside the High Court’s directive, the Supreme Court clarified that the state government remains empowered to take action against encroachments on forest land. However, it emphasised that any such action must be guided by the objectives of a welfare state. The Bench asked the Himachal Pradesh government to formulate a proposal and place it before the Centre for necessary consideration and compliance.
The ruling came while hearing petitions filed by the state government challenging the High Court’s decision, along with pleas by former Shimla deputy mayor Tikender Singh Panwar and activist Rajiv Rai, a lawyer. Earlier, on July 28, the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court’s order after the petitioners highlighted that lakhs of people would be affected, particularly during the monsoon season.
The controversy arose from a July 2 order of the High Court directing the forest department to remove apple orchards from encroached land and replace them with forest species. The order also required the costs of removal to be recovered from encroachers as arrears of land revenue. Panwar had argued that the decision led to immediate action on the ground, with reports indicating that over 3,800 apple trees were felled by July 18 in areas such as Chaithla, Kotgarh and Rohru, and plans were in place to remove up to 50,000 trees across the state.
In their plea, the petitioners termed the High Court’s directive arbitrary and disproportionate, warning of irreversible ecological and socio-economic harm in the ecologically fragile hill state. They pointed out that large-scale felling of fruit-bearing trees during the monsoon heightened the risk of landslides and soil erosion in a region already prone to seismic activity.
The petitioners also stressed that apple orchards contribute to soil stability, provide habitats for local wildlife, and form the backbone of Himachal Pradesh’s economy by supporting thousands of small farmers. They argued that the blanket removal of orchards without a comprehensive environmental impact assessment violated established environmental principles, including the precautionary principle, and infringed upon the constitutional right to livelihood under Article 21.
Taking note of these concerns, the Supreme Court underscored the need for a balanced approach that addresses forest protection while safeguarding livelihoods, effectively shifting the focus from judicial directives to policy-driven solutions backed by the state and the Centre.
