The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order directing the removal of fruit-bearing orchards from encroached forest land, observing that the high court should not have passed an order with such far-reaching consequences. The apex court said the decision had a severe impact on marginalised communities and landless people whose livelihoods depend on apple cultivation.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the high court’s direction affected thousands of small and marginal apple growers. Calling the order disproportionate, the Supreme Court said it resulted in social and economic hardship, particularly for those dependent on orchards for survival. The verdict has brought major relief to lakhs of apple growers across the hill state.
Court asks state to seek central support for affected communities
The top court asked the Himachal Pradesh government to prepare a proposal seeking assistance from the central government to safeguard the interests of marginalised sections and landless people. It underlined that issues involving livelihoods and rehabilitation fall within the policy domain and should be handled by the executive rather than through judicial directives.
The Supreme Court observed that the high court should not have ordered the felling of fruit-bearing trees without assessing environmental and socio-economic consequences. It emphasised that blanket removal of orchards was not justified, especially when alternative measures could be explored. However, the court clarified that the state government is free to take action against illegal encroachments on forest land in accordance with the law.
Background of the case and earlier stay
The verdict came on a petition filed by former Shimla deputy mayor Tikender Singh Panwar and advocate Rajiv Rai, who had challenged the high court’s July order directing the forest department to remove apple orchards and replace them with forest species. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the high court’s order and allowed the state government to auction the harvested apples.
The petitioners had argued that large-scale felling of apple trees, especially during the monsoon season, increased the risk of landslides and soil erosion in the ecologically fragile region. They also pointed out that apple orchards contribute to soil stability, support biodiversity, and form the backbone of Himachal Pradesh’s rural economy. The destruction of orchards, they said, violated the constitutional right to livelihood under Article 21.
According to the petition, more than 3,800 apple trees had already been felled in areas such as Chaithla, Kotgarh and Rohru, with plans to remove up to 50,000 trees across the state. The Supreme Court took note of public distress caused by the destruction of fruit-laden trees and acknowledged the irreversible damage such actions could cause.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reinforced the need for a balanced approach that protects forest land while also safeguarding livelihoods and environmental stability in Himachal Pradesh.