The Supreme Court on Monday raised a significant and long-overdue question: Why are virtually all matters concerning forests, lakes, and ecologically sensitive zones being brought directly before the apex court—often through interim applications in a single public interest litigation (PIL) dating back to 1995—while high courts are being bypassed?

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made the observation at the outset of a hearing involving a plea related to Chandigarh’s Sukhna Lake. The judges expressed concern that environmental issues of local or regional nature were increasingly being funneled to the top court, not via independent petitions, but as interim requests tagged to the nearly three-decades-old In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad PIL.

This PIL, originally intended to address deforestation in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, eventually expanded into a sprawling umbrella under which hundreds of forest-related issues across India have been raised. Over time, many benches—including those led by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai—have issued sweeping directions, guidelines, and binding orders relating to forest management, wildlife protection, and environmental governance across states.

On Monday, however, the current CJI’s bench signalled a potential course correction.

“Why Are All Forest Matters Coming to This Court?”

The bench’s pointed query highlighted a concern: high courts, empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to deal with such matters, appear sidelined whenever litigants cite that the Supreme Court is already “seized” of the overarching PIL. This, the CJI suggested, may be allowing local environmental disputes to leapfrog the usual judicial hierarchy.

Taking up the Sukhna Lake plea—which concerns protection of the lake’s catchment area—Chief Justice Kant remarked that the water body lies barely 500 metres from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Yet the matter had been tagged to the Supreme Court via the 1995 PIL, potentially stripping the high court of jurisdiction.

“We are taking away their power under Article 226,” the CJI said. He noted that high courts often refrain from acting once they are told that the Supreme Court is hearing related issues under the Godavarman umbrella.

In unusually candid remarks, the CJI added that the Sukhna matter “appeared like a friendly match” involving private developers or vested interests who might prefer adjudication in the Supreme Court over scrutiny by the local high court.

A Systematic Problem: The Godavarman PIL as a Catch-all Mechanism

The bench underscored that the Supreme Court has become a clearinghouse for all forest-related disputes, many of which are highly localised and require region-specific assessment. The CJI acknowledged that “pan-India issues” requiring uniform direction still belong with the apex court. However, matters involving local lakes, forest compartments, or regional encroachments can and should be handled by high courts—unless there is a compelling national reason otherwise.

The court asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati and senior advocate K. Parmeswar, who serves as amicus curiae in forest matters, to identify which issues were genuinely national in scope and which should return to high courts.

Backdrop: The Supreme Court’s Expanding Environmental Jurisprudence

The discussion also came in the context of the massive judicial footprint left by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, who issued several landmark orders shortly before retiring. These included:

• directing Jharkhand to notify 126 compartments in the Saranda forest as a wildlife sanctuary;
• prohibiting any mining within a one-kilometre radius of the sanctuary;
• adopting a uniform definition for the Aravali range and banning fresh mining leases in the hill system across four states;
• ordering states to notify eco-sensitive zones around all tiger reserves, including buffer and fringe areas, within one year;
• banning mining activities within one kilometre of core and buffer zones of tiger habitats;
• directing Uttarakhand to demolish unauthorised structures and restore areas damaged by illegal tree-felling inside the Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve.

These sweeping directions illustrate the scale of environmental intervention the Supreme Court has undertaken under the Godavarman umbrella. Monday’s observations suggest the court may now be reconsidering the breadth of that remit.

Sukhna Lake: A Longstanding Battle Over Encroachment

The immediate issue before the court—the Sukhna Lake case—centres on the deterioration of the lake’s catchment area due to encroachment and unregulated development. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2020 ordered the demolition of structures illegally built in the catchment zone. The high court has repeatedly expressed concern about clogged natural drains, reduced water flow, and ecological degradation.

The Supreme Court bench on Monday acknowledged that the protection of Sukhna’s catchment area is essential and said it wanted clarity on the stakeholders involved, what steps had been taken by the state government, and what remained pending with the Union government.

A Possible Reorientation Ahead

The bench hinted that it may consider sending specific, localised matters back to the appropriate high courts. It also questioned why fresh petitions were not being filed independently instead of being tagged to the TN Godavarman PIL, signalling that the court may soon place limits on the decades-old mechanism that currently governs environmental litigation nationwide.

A decision on reassigning such cases to high courts, the CJI indicated, will be taken after hearing all parties.

As India grapples with rapid urbanisation, climate pressures, and environmental degradation, Monday’s developments mark a potentially pivotal moment. The Supreme Court appears poised to recalibrate its own role—balancing national oversight with the need for high courts to exercise their constitutional powers in safeguarding forests, lakes, and local ecosystems.