The CJI said he can point it out when the first report as per the HC direction is submitted. “When they submit the first report to the HC, you can point out this…”, he said.THE Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court order allowing the removal of 45,675 mangrove trees for the proposed Versova-Bhayandar coastal road.A three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the HC had examined the Environmental clearance for stage 1 of the project and only then granted clearance to stage 2. It also took note of the assurance given by the concerned authorities about reforestation.The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said the project will have “significant and beneficial impact on the general public as it will decongest the western highway”. It said “there will be other significant advantages for the residents of Mumbai due to the construction of the road”.The court was hearing a plea by NGO Vanasakthi, which argued that the land identified by the project proponent for the afforestation was 10 km away and was already under compensatory afforestation for some other project.“The 31 hectares where they say they will carry out compensatory afforestation, they got the permission for it on December 12, 2025, so they couldn’t have carried it out…have annexed the satellite images taken on October 10, 2025, two months before the HC which show the…trenches already on that 31 hectares. That’s a prior afforestation. They are just repurposing an existing afforestation. That land is already under an afforestation programme…It’s an eye wash,” senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for the NGO, told the bench.He said the petitioner was not against the project but only trying to minimise the number of mangroves being cut. “If some mangroves can be saved…. Mangroves absorb CO2 more than 5 times that of a normal forest…They take at least 100 years to grow. Mumbai is saved from floods every year because of them.”The CJI said while environment protection norms should be vigorously enforced, the HC had also spoken about the need for ensuring the delicate balance with development.Story continues below this adSingh said, “They are asking for permission for 9,000 to be permanently cut and the rest for the purpose of the project. Which means they want to fell an area where they can do various ancillary works regarding the project, like keeping the construction material etc.” He said the ancillary activities can be done in any other area.Justice Bagchi said the stage 1 clearance was subject to some conditions. “Concern about reforestations… is a concern which is genuine…,” he said.“On the aspect that you are canvassing whether removal of so many mangrove plantations was reasonable or not, the HC is of the opinion that this is an expert assessment of the sustainable development marker,” said Justice Bagchi.Singh said, “No expert assessment has been done of this quantum at all. No alternate alignment has been looked at…The Environment (Protection) Act allows them to look at alternate arrangements also which should minimise the damage.”Justice Bagchi said, “It’s not within the domain of the HC. The HC really tests the development policy on two parameters — whether it’s in public interest…that no man grieves should be removed except when there is overbearing public interest. Now it’s not your case that this connecting road is not in public interest….”.Story continues below this adSolicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the BMC, said “the HC has been careful”. The judgment, he pointed out, says authorities before it jointly submitted that “they are willing to comply with any additional condition that the HC may deem appropriate to ensure that the replantation of mangroves and commentary afforestation achieves the intended growth and survival”.When Justice Bagchi pointed out that HC had said that compensatory afforestation must be carried out simultaneously or even before hand, Mehta said “we have started” the process.Countering this, Singh said the land identified for afforestation was already under afforestation for another project.The CJI said he can point it out when the first report as per the HC direction is submitted. “When they submit the first report to the HC, you can point out this…”, he said. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:supreme court