The Supreme Court of India, on Wednesday, recognized the proposed campus for the Indian Institute of Creative Technologies (IICT) at Mumbai’s Film City as a project of “eminent national importance.” This declaration came amidst deliberations on balancing developmental progress with ecological preservation. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, was considering an application by the Tree Authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) related to the suo motu Aarey tree-felling case.
The application in question seeks authorization to fell 124 trees and relocate another 333 near the Aarey forest area, facilitating the ongoing establishment of the IICT’s permanent campus. This initiative is projected to be a pioneering hub for Animation, Visual Effects, Gaming, Comics, and Extended Reality (AVGC-XR) in India. “After all, it is a project of eminent national importance,” remarked CJI Kant during the proceedings. He further suggested that compensatory afforestation could be managed by an independent body to maintain ecological balance in nationally significant projects.
The Supreme Court has issued a notice on the application, granting the State of Maharashtra, along with petitioners and intervenors, a two-week period to submit their responses. However, no permissions for tree felling have been extended at this juncture. The Tree Authority clarified that the proposed site lies within Film City and is not a part of the Aarey forest area. The application was filed to adhere to the Supreme Court’s January 2025 directive, which necessitates court approval for tree felling in Aarey Colony.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the project proponents have secured the necessary environmental clearances and lease agreements. The Union government holds a 34% share in the project entity, while the Maharashtra government holds 14%. As part of compensatory afforestation efforts, the project proponents have committed to planting 5,000 trees through the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra.
NGO Vanashakti requested additional time to respond, raising several queries. They questioned the thoroughness of suitability studies, the exploration of alternative sites, and the timeline for completing the promised afforestation. Additionally, they challenged the equivalence of such an institute with critical infrastructure projects like roads and transit systems, urging the court to consider the project’s environmental impact.
More Read
Vanashakti highlighted that while the institute could benefit future generations, it may also subject them to the consequences of global warming and deforestation. Justice Bagchi inquired about the criteria for determining the number of trees to be felled and transplanted. The Tree Authority expressed willingness for an independent evaluation, suggesting institutions like IIT Bombay and the Bombay Natural History Society as potential evaluators.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing in two weeks. Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta represented the MCGM Tree Authority, while Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and Arundhati Katju represented other parties involved.
