Himachal Ecological Crisis: SC Seeks Detailed Answers from State Govt, Forest Dept; Responses Due by Oct 28

The Bench had recorded submissions from the State’s Additional Advocate General (AAG), who had informed that Himachal Pradesh had filed a detailed response on August 23.

The 65-page report, he said, comprehensively dealt with various aspects of environmental degradation, including deforestation, landslides, and unregulated construction. Advocate General (AG) Anup Rattan also appeared for the State.

Justice Nath, while noting the report had observed that the Court would require independent assistance in addressing the wider environmental concerns raised in the suo motu proceedings. “We will consider and appoint somebody to help us,” the Bench had remarked, indicating its intention to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the Court.

The matter, which was registered suo motu, stemmed from the Court’s earlier observations that Himachal Pradesh faces a grave ecological crisis threatening its very existence. Unplanned urbanisation, deforestation, and recurring natural disasters have repeatedly drawn judicial concern.

In July, observing that "the day is not far when the entire State of HP may vanish in thin air from the map of the country," the Court had emphasised the urgent need for sustainable development and ecological preservation.

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had made these remarks while dismissing a Special Leave Petition which had challenged a Himachal Pradesh High Court order dated July 2, 2025.

The High Court had refused to interfere with a state notification dated June 6, 2025, declaring Shri Tara Mata Hill as a Green Area and thereby restricting private construction in the ecologically sensitive zone.

While affirming the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court had pivoted to the broader environmental crisis confronting Himachal Pradesh. Citing frequent floods, landslides, and infrastructural collapse, the Court had noted that the state's aggressive tourism-driven construction, deforestation, and unchecked infrastructure projects had resulted in a “severe ecological imbalance.”

"Nature is definitely annoyed with the activities going on in the State of HP," the Court had remarked, holding human actions, not nature, responsible for the cascading disasters.

The Court had underscored that despite Himachal Pradesh’s designation as a major hydroelectric power hub, the cumulative impact of unscientific construction, blasting for tunnels, and diversion of rivers has made the terrain highly vulnerable to disasters and climate change.

It had also noted that even minimum water outflow mandates are often disregarded, causing the Sutlej river to shrink into a rivulet and aquatic life to vanish.

Quoting alarming data and expert reports, the Bench had highlighted the visible effects of climate change: rising temperatures, altered snowfall patterns, glacial retreat (notably the Bara Shigri glacier shrinking by 2–2.5 km), and erratic weather events threatening agriculture, water security, and biodiversity.

Further, Court had taken note of unregulated tourism and inadequate waste management, especially in high-altitude zones, which are worsening the environmental strain. Many hotels and homestays, it said, are being constructed on unstable slopes without proper zoning or environmental clearance.

In light of these observations, Court had directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to file a comprehensive action plan addressing the ecological and environmental issues raised in the order. A copy of the judgment had also been sent to the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh and the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

"We want to impress upon the State Government and Union of India respectively that earning revenue is not everything. Revenue cannot be earned at the cost of environment and ecology," the Bench had said, adding, “God forbid this doesn’t happen.”