The Supreme Court on Friday declined to halt the removal of over 45,000 mangrove trees for the proposed Versova-Bhayandar Coastal Road in Mumbai, refusing to interfere with a Bombay High Court order that granted permission for the project subject to conditions including mandatory annual status reports on mangrove restoration for ten years.
While hearing a petition filed by environment NGO Vanashakti, challenging the High Court's order of 12 December 2025, a bench comprising chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, justice Joymalya Bagchi, and justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the proposed road would have a 'significant and beneficial impact on the general public as it will decongest the western highway' and that the High Court had imposed suitable safeguards. "There will be other significant advantages for the residents of Mumbai due to the construction of the road," the bench observed, declining to intervene.
The project requires the removal of 45,675 mangroves spread across 103.65 hectares. Of these, 9,000 mangroves are to be permanently axed, those directly in the path of construction, while the remaining 36,675 are to be relocated to shadow areas once the project is completed. BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has undertaken to carry out compensatory afforestation on an equivalent area of non-forest land in Chandrapur district, with three times the impacted green cover to be planted as compensation.
Senior counsel Chander Uday Singh, appearing for Vanashakti, made a pointed appeal to the bench to consider minimising the damage rather than eliminating the project altogether. "If the amount of cutting can be minimised, if we save at least 10,000, that is a huge benefit for the nation. Mangroves absorb CO2 more than five times that of a normal forest. We are not questioning the project — saving mangroves won't hamper it. As per them, only 9,000 are in the direct path of the project," Mr Singh submitted.
He also urged the bench to remember the ecological stakes. "If some mangroves can be saved, they take at least 100 years to grow. Mumbai is saved from floods because of them," the senior counsel told the court. He further alleged that BMC had obtained the High Court's permission by re-purposing a prior afforestation, producing satellite images from October 2025, two months before the High Court's December order, to substantiate the claim.
The CJI Kant, however, pointed out that experts had arrived at the figure of trees requiring removal and that the court could not second-guess them. Justice Bagchi noted that the petitioner would need to challenge the stage I environmental clearance to question the number of trees earmarked for diversion, and that the High Court had not simply accepted the project proponent's word but had considered the environmental clearance before granting permission.
Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for BMC, refuted the allegations of re-purposing prior afforestation and argued that construction of the road would reduce travel time and traffic congestion and consequently reduce carbon emissions.
Beyond the courtroom arguments, Vanashakti's director Stalin D raised serious concerns about BMC's compliance with the High Court's own conditions. He alleged that BMC had already commenced surface-level mangrove cutting under a working permission from the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change, in coordination with the state forest department, without waiting for stage II forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, a requirement that Vanashakti contends is mandatory before felling can proceed.
The Supreme Court, while declining to stay the project, directed BMC to submit annual reports to the High Court detailing the extent of compensatory afforestation and mangrove restoration and reminded the petitioner that this safeguard was already in place. "In view of the safeguards taken by the High Court, we see no reason to interfere with the High Court's order," the bench observed.
Lessons from the Past 150: The Big Picture
Walter Vieira,
20 March 2026
Sometime back, the newspapers carried a photograph of a new highway road of four lanes, which then gets narrowed to two lanes, when it comes to a long bridge across the river. This causes endless chaos when the traffic from four lanes...
Can ED Sue? Supreme Court Grapples with Constitutional Vacuum after West Bengal Argues Investigative Agency Has No Right To Invoke Fundamental Rights
Moneylife Digital Team
18 March 2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday grappled with a fundamental constitutional question, whether the directorate of enforcement (ED), as a department of the Union government rather than an independent legal entity, can file a writ petition...
Antrix-Devas Corruption Case: Delhi Court Returns CBI Chargesheet after 10 Years Citing Lack of Jurisdiction
Bhavini Srivastava (Bar
and
Bench)
18 March 2026
A Delhi court recently returned the 2016 chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Antrix-Devas corruption case on finding that the court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter...
‘Lawyers Must Not Loot Clients’: Bombay HC Refuses To Quash FIR against Advocate in Bribery Case
Moneylife Digital Team
16 March 2026
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) has refused to quash a corruption case against an advocate accused of persuading his client to pay a bribe to police officers, holding that the legal profession carries a high ethical...
