The National Green Tribunal’s suo moto intervention, triggered by a newspaper report, underscores a critical failure in environmental compliance: the diversion of funds meant for compensatory afforestation without any corresponding ecological restoration. This case is not merely about unfulfilled tree planting - it is a systemic breakdown in enforcing the principle that economic development cannot override the statutory duty to replace lost forest cover.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The grievance arises from the cutting of trees in forest areas of Sagar and Chattarpur districts in Madhya Pradesh for the Bharat Mala project’s Sagar-Hirapur bypass, Mohari-Sathya Valley stretch. Under environmental law, such felling requires compensatory afforestation, wherein the developer must deposit funds for replanting an equivalent number of trees elsewhere. The National Highway Authority of India deposited Rs. 27 crore into the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (Campa Fund) - Rs. 19.54 crore to Sagar North Forest Division and Rs. 8.34 crore to Chattarpur Forest Division. Despite this, no plantation work had commenced, rendering the fund’s purpose meaningless.
Procedural History
The matter came before the National Green Tribunal through a suo moto initiative initiated by the Tribunal itself, prompted by a December 21, 2025, article in Dainik Bhaskar titled "Jungle Ke Seene Par Ye Ghav Hai Ya Vikas Ki Lakir". No formal petition was filed by any individual or organization. The Tribunal, recognizing the gravity of environmental degradation and public interest, assumed jurisdiction under its suo moto powers under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Relief Sought
The applicant, acting through the Tribunal’s suo moto authority, sought immediate accountability for the non-utilization of funds and demanded a detailed action plan for the execution of compensatory plantation on the designated sites.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the deposit of funds into the Campa Fund constitutes compliance with the compensatory afforestation obligation, or whether actual plantation and survival of trees are mandatory prerequisites under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant (Suo Moto)
While no formal advocate appeared, the Tribunal’s own inquiry framed the position that mere deposit of funds does not discharge statutory obligations. The principle of polluter pays and the doctrine of sustainable development require tangible ecological restoration. The failure to plant trees despite fund availability constitutes a violation of Section 10 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, which mandates replacement of lost forest cover.
For the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.)
The State did not file any written submission prior to the hearing. The Tribunal noted the absence of any explanation for the delay or non-implementation, which amounted to a de facto admission of non-compliance.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal emphasized that compensatory afforestation is not a financial transaction but an ecological obligation. The deposit of funds is merely the first step; the law requires actual implementation on the ground. The Court cited Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-I v. Union of India to affirm that funds must be used for their intended purpose within a reasonable time, and failure to do so amounts to environmental negligence.
"The purpose of the Campa Fund is not to accumulate money in government accounts but to ensure that every tree felled is replaced by a living, surviving tree in a designated area. Without this, the balance of the ecosystem is irreparably disturbed."
The Tribunal rejected the notion that financial compliance equates to environmental compliance. It held that survival rate of planted trees, species diversity, and site-specific implementation are non-negotiable components of statutory duty. The absence of any monitoring or reporting mechanism further indicated systemic neglect.
The Verdict
The National Green Tribunal ruled in favor of environmental protection. It held that deposit of funds alone does not satisfy legal obligations under the Forest (Conservation) Act and directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to submit a comprehensive action taken report within four weeks, detailing tree planting, survival rates, and a timeline for utilizing unspent funds.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compensatory Afforestation Is Not Financial Compliance
- Practitioners must now argue that mere fund deposit is insufficient to prove compliance with environmental clearances
- Environmental impact assessments must include verifiable, time-bound plantation plans with survival metrics
- State agencies cannot rely on fund transfers as proof of ecological restoration
Monitoring Must Be Transparent and Documented
- All plantation activities must be recorded in searchable PDF/OCR format, not image-based scans
- Survival rates must be independently verified and submitted to the Tribunal
- Failure to comply with reporting formats may result in contempt proceedings
Suo Moto Powers Are a Viable Enforcement Tool
- The Tribunal’s use of suo moto jurisdiction signals that courts will act proactively when public interest is at stake
- Media reports can trigger judicial intervention in environmental matters without formal petitions
- Lawyers should monitor media for potential environmental violations and advise clients on preemptive compliance
