The Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed that no trees may be felled within an aerial distance of 5 kilometres from the Taj Mahal without its express permission, regardless of the number of trees involved.

A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan reiterated the Court’s 2015 directive requiring all tree-felling requests in the core area of the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) to be submitted for judicial scrutiny.

The TTZ, spread across 10,400 sq km, was created to safeguard the Taj Mahal and other historical sites in Agra from environmental degradation.

“The order dated 15 May 2015 shall continue to apply. No tree felling will be permitted within 5 km of the Taj Mahal without permission of this Court,” the Bench ruled.

Outside the 5 km radius but within the broader TTZ, permission for tree felling must be obtained from the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) or the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The Court stressed strict adherence to the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, particularly Section 7, which mandates compensatory afforestation.

The DFO must verify full compliance with statutory requirements, including afforestation, before granting any approvals. Tree felling or translocation cannot proceed until all preconditions are satisfied.

An exception is allowed in cases of grave urgency involving threats to human life. Even in such cases, felling must be immediately justified by a genuine emergency.

The Bench also directed the CEC to assess whether similar protective measures should extend to other heritage monuments in Agra, such as Agra Fort and Fatehpur Sikri.

The Court dismissed an application by a trust seeking a more lenient regime for tree felling on private or non-forest land under the guise of promoting agro-forestry. The Bench rejected the suggestion of a registry-based oversight mechanism, stating:

“What the applicant effectively seeks is a blanket permission to fell trees under the pretext of agro-forestry. Granting such relief would nullify decades of judicial safeguards since 1984.”

The ruling refers back to the Court’s March 2025 decision, where it recalled a 2019 exemption for agro-forestry, citing concerns over its misuse and the ambiguity surrounding its definition.

The matter will be taken up further after the CEC files its report on compliance and possible expansion of environmental protections to other heritage sites.