Supreme Court Stays Tree‑Felling in KBR National Park’s Eco‑Sensitive Zone – SLP Challenges ESZ Reduction

Supreme Court Stays Tree‑Felling in KBR National Park’s Eco‑Sensitive Zone The Supreme Court on 18 May 2026 issued an interim direction halting tree‑cutting within the eco‑sensitive zone (ESZ) surrounding Hyderabad’s KBR National Park . The order came while hearing a petition that challenges the narrowing of the ESZ from the originally proposed 25‑35 metres to a variable 3‑29.8 metres. Key Developments Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stayed any tree‑felling within a 25‑35 metre ESZ around the park. The petition, filed by Kaajal Maheshwari , contests the Special Leave Petition (SLP C No. 17054/2026) against the Telangana High Court’s refusal to grant interim relief. The petition alleges that the reduction of the ESZ was driven by the Strategic Road Development Plan , not by scientific assessment. The final notification by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on 27 Oct 2020 fixed the ESZ width at 3‑29.8 metres. Important Facts The petition highlights that between 2012‑2015 the state had proposed a uniform 25‑35 metre buffer, which was later diluted to accommodate road projects. Public objections were recorded, with over 19,000 signatures opposing the dilution, yet the petition claims these were ignored and a public hearing was falsely represented as having taken place. Under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 , KBR National Park enjoys protection as a notified area, making any encroachment subject to stringent scrutiny. UPSC Relevance Understanding the legal framework of environmental protection is essential for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 3 (Environment). The case illustrates how judicial intervention can safeguard ecological buffers, a recurring theme in questions on sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and the role of institutions like the MoEFCC . It also underscores the procedural aspects of public participation in environmental clearances, relevant for governance and policy‑making topics. Way Forward Await the Supreme Court’s final judgment on the legality of the reduced ESZ. State authorities may need to conduct a scientific ecological assessment to justify any buffer modification. Strengthen mechanisms for genuine public hearings and transparent decision‑making in environmental clearances. Ensure that infrastructure projects like the SRDP incorporate ecological safeguards to prevent irreversible damage. For UPSC aspirants, the case serves as a practical example of the interplay between environmental law, judicial oversight, and development planning, illustrating the need for balanced policy approaches.