Team Herald
MARGAO: The Supreme Court has demanded an explanation from the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEFCC) after environmentalists led by Goa-based group Rainbow Warriors (RW), challenged a new credit system meant to increase the country's green cover.
The shortcomings could adversely affect India’s forest conservation efforts and compromise the rights of Indigenous people, the greens argued.
The court, acknowledging legitimate ecological concerns raised in the petition, emphasised the need for balancing afforestation efforts with ecological sustainability as it ordered the ministry to respond to the serious allegations. The MoEFCC has now asked for additional time to file a detailed reply.
The plea, filed in early March 2025 by Rainbow Warriors from Goa alongside People for Aravallis, targets the government’s Green Credit Rules (GCR) that allow companies to earn tradable credits by planting trees – credits that can later be used to fulfil compensatory afforestation requirements when forest land is diverted for non-forestry purposes. The Goan environmental organisation, which has been actively involved in protecting the Western Ghats, spearheaded the intervention application as part of an existing challenge to amendments in the Forest Conservation Act.
“Plant and forget is what these rules essentially permit,” said Abhijit Prabhudesai, Federation of Rainbow Warriors General Secretary.
“Companies can get credit just for putting saplings in the ground with absolutely no responsibility for keeping them alive. That's not conservation – it's an ecological threat.”
The petition, represented by Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy and Advocate on Record Rashmi Nandakumar, highlights reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General revealing the grim reality behind tree plantation schemes across India. According to these audits, only 6-30% of planted trees actually survive in various States – a damning statistic that petitioners argue renders the current rules essentially meaningless for environmental protection.
Perhaps more alarming is the petitioner's claim that the rules could actively harm India’s diverse ecosystems by mandating plantations in environments that naturally don’t support trees. The current framework prescribes planting 1,100 trees per hectare without scientific backing and allows plantations in open forests, scrub lands, and areas officially designated as ‘wastelands’ – many of which are actually vital ecosystems like savanna grasslands.
“We felt it was critical to challenge these Green Credit Rules to save the highly threatened Western Ghats in Goa, along with the Aravallis and all other natural ecosystems across India,” explained Prabhudesai. “Our home State’s unique biodiversity faces serious risks if these rules are implemented in their current form.”
“Planting trees in naturally treeless ecosystems is ecological malpractice,” added Wildlife Biologist Malaika Mathew Chawla. “India’s savanna grasslands support critically endangered species like the Great Indian Bustard and numerous other threatened plants and animals. Forcing artificial forests onto these landscapes doesn’t fight climate change – it destroys irreplaceable biodiversity.”
The petition also raises serious concerns about potential violations of the Forest Rights Act. According to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, over 117,683 communities currently hold forest rights titles that could be jeopardised if plantations under the Green Credit Rules proceed without proper safeguards. This creates a potential clash between environmental initiatives and indigenous rights that the court will need to navigate.
Neelam Ahluwalia, Founder Member of People for Aravallis, outlined their specific requests to the Supreme Court: “We’re asking that companies be held responsible for tree survival over time, not just planting them. We want the arbitrary requirement of 1,100 trees per hectare reconsidered, plantations prohibited in sensitive ecosystems, and assurance that forest rights won't be compromised.”
The Green Credit Rules, first notified in October 2023 and supplemented with calculation methodologies in February 2024, were positioned as a market-based mechanism to incentivize environmental conservation through tradable credits. Companies can earn these credits through activities like tree planting and then use them to meet corporate social responsibility requirements or as environmental, social and governance leadership indicators.
MoEFCC has indicated its willingness to respond to the concerns and consider improvements to the Green Credit Rules. However, the case highlights a fundamental tension in India’s environmental governance: how to balance the quantitative goal of increasing forest cover with the qualitative imperative of maintaining ecological diversity and sustainability.
Environmental experts are closely watching this case, which comes at a time when India faces mounting pressures from climate change, biodiversity loss, and development needs. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could significantly reshape how environmental compensation and afforestation are approached across the country.
“This isn’t just about trees,” Prabhudesai emphasised. “It’s about whether environmental policy will be guided by ecological science or merely by numbers on paper. The difference will determine the future not just of Goa’s Western Ghats, but of India’s natural heritage as a whole.”