The Supreme Court recently warned that the unchecked ecological degradation in Himachal Pradesh could lead to the State’s disappearance from the map of the country and directed the State and Union Government to file action plans addressing the ongoing environmental crisis in the State [M/S Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.].

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made these remarks while dismissing a challenge by a private company, M/s Pristine Hotels and Resorts Private Ltd., against a June 2025 notification that declared Shri Tara Mata Hill as a green area and prohibited fresh private construction.

After upholding the notification and the High Court’s refusal to entertain the hotel company’s plea, the Bench invoked its powers to initiate a suo motu public interest litigation petition on the wider issues of environmental protection and climate vulnerability in the State.

"If things proceed the way they are as on date, then the day is not far when the entire State of HP may vanish in thin air from the map of the country," the Court said.

The Court noted that the notification’s object to prevent further construction in ecologically sensitive areas was laudable but warned that it may have come too late.

“The situation in the State of Himachal Pradesh has gone from bad to worse. The severe ecological imbalance and other environmental conditions have led to serious natural calamities over a period of years. This year also hundreds of people perished in the floods and landslides & thousands of properties got destroyed. The nature definitely is annoyed with the activities which are going on in the State of HP,” the bench said.

The Court said it was not nature but human activities that were to blame for the scale of destruction.

The Court flagged rampant construction, road expansion, hydro power projects and deforestation as key contributors to the crisis.

“It is not right to blame only nature for the disaster in Himachal Pradesh. Humans, not nature, are responsible for phenomenon such as continuous land sliding of mountains and soil, landslides on roads, collapsing of houses and buildings, subsidence of road etc,” the Court said.

It drew from expert reports to note that projects like Bhakra, Nathpa Jhakri and others - many of them located in the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi river basins - were major contributors to destabilisation, especially when executed without adequate geological assessments or cumulative environmental impact studies.

“Apparently, the minimum outflow of water, as is contractually mandated, is not being adhered to by the project proponents, resulting in the vanishing of aquatic life. In fact, the mighty trans Himalayan river Sutlej stands reduced to a rivulet,” the bench said.

The Court described climate change as an urgent problem, citing data on rising temperatures, melting glaciers and erratic weather.

“Unseasonal rainfall and prolonged dry spells affect agriculture and water availability. Erratic weather patterns also destabilise slopes and affect biodiversity,” it noted.

It also criticised the unregulated growth of tourism, stating that the boom in religious and eco-tourism has led to garbage dumping, illegal construction and environmental collapse in popular zones like Rohtang and Kullu.

The Bench also took note of the State’s failure to regulate solid waste management, especially in hill towns and trekking routes and warned that the fragile mountain ecosystem will not bear this burden for long.

It further said that the absence of checkposts and enforcement had enabled widespread illegal tree-felling, compounding the dangers of forest degradation and landslides.

The bench issued a clear warning to the Himachal Pradesh government against prioritising short-term revenue generation over long-term sustainability.

“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 Court said.

The Bench noted that the Advocate General for the State was present in Court and had “fairly conceded to the fact that the State has failed to pay attention to what has fallen from this Court.”

The Court directed the registry to treat the present matter as a public interest litigation on environmental issues in Himachal Pradesh and ordered the State to file a comprehensive reply within four weeks.

“We expect the State to file an appropriate reply explaining whether they have any action plan to meet with the issues we have discussed and what do they propose to do future,” the Court noted in the order.

The matter is slated to be heard next on August 25.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate PS Patwalia with advocates Kushagra Goyal and Alok Tripathy.

The respondents were represented by Advocate General Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General Vaibhav Srivastava, Senior Advocate Navin Pahwa and advocate Puneet Rajia.

[Read Order]