Severe Ecological imbalance Led to Serious Natural Calamities In Himachal Supreme Court seeks State’s action plan

Situation in Himachal gone from bad to worse; severe ecological imbalance led to serious natural calamities; Supreme Court seeks State’s action plan. The Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan refused to interfere with a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment upholding a government notification that declared Shri Tara Mata Hill a ‘Green Area’ and prohibited construction there. However, in the larger public interest, the Court directed the State to submit an action plan to tackle environmental degradation.

Background of the Case

Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the hospitality sector, sought to set up a resort in the Shri Tara Mata Hill area. On 6 June 2025, the Himachal Pradesh Government’s Town and Country Planning Department issued a notification declaring the area a ‘Green Area,’ restricting any construction activities.

The company challenged this notification before the Himachal Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the declaration violated Sections 19 and 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. It contended that the blanket prohibition was arbitrary and hindered development.

The High Court, however, declined to entertain the petition. It noted that as a private limited company, the petitioner had not acquired any legal right to purchase land in Himachal Pradesh without State permission, and thus was not an “aggrieved person.” The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations on Ecological Concerns

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the notification aimed to curb destructive activities in sensitive areas. The Bench observed that the State had acted too late to prevent damage, noting that severe ecological imbalance had already caused catastrophic consequences.

The judges referred to recent floods and landslides in 2025 that claimed hundreds of lives and destroyed thousands of properties. They stressed that these were not purely natural calamities but the result of unplanned human activities such as hydroelectric projects, four-lane highways, deforestation, multi-storey construction, and excessive use of explosives in mountain cutting.

The Court highlighted that the State, located in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem, must seek expert advice from geologists, environmentalists, and local residents before approving any development project. It pointed out that infrastructure expansion, including tunnels and roads, often occurred without proper environmental planning, further aggravating the severe ecological imbalance.

Human Actions Worsening the Crisis

The Bench noted that Himachal Pradesh is facing rising average temperatures, irregular snowfall patterns, extreme weather events, unseasonal rainfall, and prolonged dry spells. These changes have severely affected agriculture, water resources, and forest ecosystems. The removal of forest guard check posts, the Court added, had encouraged illegal logging, increasing the risk of disasters.

Illegal and poorly regulated mining and quarrying, especially near road construction sites and riverbeds, continue despite legislation aimed at control. The Court warned that unless the State offers alternative livelihoods and strengthens enforcement, the exploitation of natural resources will persist.

The judges made it clear that economic gains could not come at the expense of environmental stability. They cautioned that if such trends continued, Himachal Pradesh risked “vanishing from the country’s map.” The Court reiterated that the Union Government also bore a responsibility to ensure that the severe ecological imbalance in the State did not worsen.

Directions and Way Forward

While dismissing the company’s appeal, the Supreme Court decided to keep the matter alive in the public interest. The Registry was directed to register a suo motu writ petition focusing on the ecological crisis in the State. Notices were issued to the Himachal Pradesh Government, requiring it to submit a detailed reply outlining:

1. Whether it has a concrete action plan to address the issues raised.
2. The specific steps it proposes to take in the future to prevent further severe ecological imbalance and environmental degradation.

The Court underscored that environmental protection, conservation of forests, and sustainable development must take precedence over short-term economic goals. It called for immediate and well-coordinated efforts involving local communities, experts, and policymakers to restore ecological balance.

In strong words, the Bench concluded that natural disasters in Himachal Pradesh were “not acts of nature alone but acts of human negligence.” By linking the severe ecological imbalance to unchecked development, deforestation, and unsustainable tourism promotion, the Court made it clear that safeguarding the environment was not optional—it was a necessity for the State’s survival.

This judgment stands as both a legal precedent and a call to action for governments, businesses, and citizens alike: protecting the fragile ecology of Himachal Pradesh is essential, and the cost of ignoring this warning will be far greater than any revenue earned through destructive development.

The matter would next be listed on 25-8-2025.

Case details: [Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, SLP(C) No. 19426 of 2025, decided on 28-7-2025]