Aarey tree-felling case: Supreme Court calls IICT's proposed campus a project of national importance

The Supreme Court on Wednesday described the proposed campus of the Indian Institute of Creative Technologies (IICT) in Mumbai's Film City as a project of “eminent national importance”, while emphasising the need to balance development with environmental safeguards..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the comment while hearing an application filed by the Tree Authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in the suo motu Aarey tree-felling matter.The application seeks permission to fell 124 trees near the Aarey forest area and to transplant another 333 for the permanent campus of IICT, which is considered to be India’s emerging centre of excellence for animation, visual effects, gaming, comics and extended reality (AVGC-XR).“After all, it is a project of eminent national importance,” CJI Kant observed.The CJI added that for projects of national importance, a balance could be struck by entrusting the execution of the compensatory afforestation plan to an independent agency..The Court issued notice on the application and allowed the State of Maharashtra, petitioners and intervenors two weeks to file their responses. No permission for felling trees was granted at this stage..The Tree Authority submitted that the plot was situated within Film City and did not form part of the Aarey forest area. It said that the application had been moved as a measure of abundant caution in view of the Supreme Court’s January 2025 order requiring its permission for tree-felling in Aarey Colony.The Court was informed that the project proponent had obtained environmental clearances and entered into the necessary lease agreement. The Union government holds a 34 per cent stake in the project company, while the Maharashtra government holds 14 per cent.The project proponent has undertaken to plant 5,000 trees through the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra as compensatory afforestation..NGO Vanashakti sought time to respond to the application. It questioned whether a suitability study had been conducted, whether alternative locations had been examined and whether the promised afforestation would be completed within the stipulated period.It also raised the larger question of whether an institute of this nature could be treated on the same footing as essential infrastructure projects such as roads and transport facilities. The Court was requested to examine the impact of the project on the remaining forest cover..When it was submitted that the Institute would benefit younger generations, Vanashakti responded that the same generation would also have to face the consequences of global warming and deforestation.Justice Bagchi sought clarity on how the number of trees proposed to be felled and transplanted had been determined.The Tree Authority said it had no objection to an independent assessment and suggested IIT Bombay, Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute and the Bombay Natural History Society as possible expert bodies.The matter will be heard again after two weeks..Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appeared for the MCGM Tree Authority..Senior Advocate Maninder Singh also appeared in the matter..Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju appeared for Vanashakti..[Read X Thread]