Need to protect forests across country: SC

Published 18 June 2026 · india

The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 18, 2026) said there was a need to protect forests across India, noting that some States like Jharkhand have

The Supreme Court on Thursday (June 18, 2026) said there was a need to protect forests across India, noting that some States like Jharkhand have natural ecosystems which must be preserved. The observations came from a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana which was hearing a plea filed by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB). “There are few States where we can really protect our natural ecosystem and you (Jharkhand) are one of them,” the told the counsel appearing for JSPCB. The Bench observed that some of the States have natural paradises like forests and they need to be protected. Plea challenging consent for stone mining The top court was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Jharkhand High Court.

The high court had in April passed directions relating to consent for stone mining or establishing stone crushers from the boundaries of forests or forest land. In January, the high court had directed that no consent should be granted for stone mining or stone crushers within one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundaries of protected forests within the State. The high court had passed the order in January while hearing a petition challenging a notification issued by JSPCB, which reduces the minimum distance for setting up stone mines and stone crushers around forest or forest land from the previously notified 400-500 metres to 250 metres. In its April order, the high court had said the restriction on the grant of consents would apply to the zone of 500 metres from the boundaries of forests or forest land insofar as stone mining was concerned, and to the zone of 400 metres insofar as stone crushers were concerned.

During the hearing on Thursday, the top court observed the authority had abruptly reduced the distance. The counsel appearing for JSPCB referred to the observations made by the high court and said everything was stalled. The Bench said the high court was seized of the matter and it was listed for final hearing there. “Let the high court pass a final order,” the Bench said. When the counsel referred to the high court’s observations, the Bench said: “We cannot demoralise our high courts. We are not headmasters to advise the high courts what to do and what not to do. The high courts are constitutional courts”. After the Bench showed its disinclination in interfering with the high court’s order, the counsel appearing for the petitioner said they would withdraw the plea.

The Bench permitted the counsel to withdraw the petition and said the petitioner would be entitled to raise all the issues before the high court.