The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Dr Aman Sharma v. UOI And Ors observed and has issued the notice to the Indore Municipal Corporation and the Indore Development Authority, wherein a Public Interest Litigation moved seeking recognition of trees as living entities and also in order to declare that they are being entitled to rights.
The Division bench comprising of Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta in the case observed and has stated that the notice be made returnable within four weeks.
In the present case, the Public Interest Litigation, PIL is moved by one, Aman Sharma, a resident of Indore through Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar, wherein it is claimed that the Indore Development Authority is illegally felling 257 trees in order to construct a flyover at Khajrana Square in Indore.
The petition filed stated that the authority plans to plant new trees and after the completion of the construction and that such conduct made by the authority implies that it is to consider the trees as the ‘non-living objects.’
It has also been argued by the court that the trees belong to the category of living beings and possess the ability to grow, revive, feel, react, process, consume, suffer, sleep, get excited, and to respond to the actions of the environment.
The PIL moved argues that the Indore Municipal Corporation in order to prevent the diseases on plants and trees has introduced a Tree Ambulance and the same leads to the affirmation of the assertion that the ambulance can only be used in order to protect a living entity. Therefore, in this present context, the ambulances are being made specifically for the purpose of protecting the trees from diseases. However, the trees are the living entity.
The petitioner in the plea filed also seek interim relief to form an expert committee to oversee tree cutting in Indore and submit a report, wherein it also seek directions to the central and state government authorities in order to formulate a policy to prevent trees from being cut for future events.
The counsel, Abhinav Dhanodkar appearing for the petitioner.
The counsel, Manoj Manav, Bhuwan Gautam represented the respondents.