New Delhi, Mar 26 (PTI) The Supreme Court's remark that cutting a large number of trees is worse than killing human beings should be a "wake-up call" for the central government, which has been "weakening" forest protection laws, and for states that have been "mindlessly" clearing green cover for development, environmentalists said on Wednesday.

The apex court made the observation while rejecting the plea of a man who had chopped down 454 trees in the protected Taj Trapezium Zone.

"There should be no mercy in the environmental case. Felling a large number of trees is worse than killing a human," it said.

Environmentalists welcomed the apex court's strong stand on forest and tree protection but questioned if governments would take it seriously.

"This is a wake-up call for the central government, which has constantly been diluting forest protection laws," said Bhim Singh Rawat from the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP).

He said the situation was particularly alarming in the geologically fragile and climatically sensitive Himalayan states.

"The continuous push for large-scale infrastructure projects such as hydropower, dams, roads, tunnels and railways has led to the loss of thousands of hectares of pristine forests. This has increased disaster risks, vulnerability and fatalities in the region," he said.

Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav told the Lok Sabha on Monday that India had diverted 1,734 square kilometres of forest land, significantly larger (much more) than the total geographical area of Delhi, for development activities in the 10 years starting 2014-15.

Last July, Union Minister of State for Environment Kirti Vardhan Singh had informed the Lower House that 957.25 square kilometres of forest area had been diverted for non-forestry use over five years from April 2019.

He had said 881 projects were approved in national parks and wildlife sanctuaries across the country during this period.

Meanwhile, SANDRP's Rawat also claimed that the judiciary "failed" to protect forests, citing the Char Dham all-weather road project in Uttarakhand as an example.

Neelam Ahluwalia, environmentalist and founder member of People for Aravallis, said India was highly vulnerable to climate change, facing everything from extreme heat waves to glacial lake outburst floods.

"Our forests and natural ecosystems are our only protective shields, yet we are destroying them in the name of so-called development projects. From (Great) Nicobar to Hasdeo, Odisha, the northeast and the Aravallis, forests are being axed across the country," she said.

Ahluwalia said illegal, unchecked mining in the Aravallis had devastated green cover, food and water sources in the already water-stressed region.

In 2018, the Supreme Court's Central Empowered Committee reported that 31 Aravalli hills had disappeared in Rajasthan -- razed by mining.

"Along with the hills, vegetation and green cover goes too. Real estate and mining have destroyed hill after hill across the 692-kilometre Aravalli range, creating 12 breaches from Ajmer in Rajasthan to Mahendergarh in Haryana, allowing the Thar desert to advance toward the Indo-Gangetic plains. If this continues, all of northwest India will face desertification," Ahluwalia warned.

She also alleged flaws in compensatory afforestation, saying a petition filed by her group in the Supreme Court challenging the Green Credit Rules highlighted several Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports showing extremely low plantation survival rates, some as low as six per cent.

"Compensatory afforestation is not a solution for destroying virgin forests for roads, railways, mining, buildings, solar farms and hydropower projects. In this climate crisis, we simply cannot afford to axe and destroy our existing trees, green belts, forests and ecosystems any further," she said.

Guman Singh, coordinator of the Himalayan Policy Campaign, however, disagreed with the Supreme Court's blanket statement against tree cutting, calling it an "unscientific viewpoint".

"Forest-dwellers in mountainous and forested regions depend on trees for their livelihood -- for building houses, firewood, and making tools and utensils. Saying that trees cannot be cut at all is not correct as it would harm these indigenous and traditional forest communities," he said.

Singh blamed modern development policies for large-scale deforestation.

"Forests and large trees are being lost due to infrastructure projects such as road widening, large dams, urbanisation and construction. These so-called development policies must be stopped," he said.

"I cannot agree with the Supreme Court's one-sided perspective but I certainly agree that the destruction of millions of trees for large projects must be strictly stopped. We also need to create new mixed forests on a large scale," he added.

Vivek Agarwal, country director (India) at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, said trees and forests were the first line of defence against worsening extreme weather events.

"Moreover, meeting India's NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) pledge to generate an extra carbon sink of roughly 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 demands swift expansion of forests. Preserving existing forests and aggressive afforestation is essential for public health, ecological resilience and, frankly, for human survival itself," he said.

Environmentalist and RTI activist Amit Gupta said the loss of green cover was making heat waves more intense.

"Temperatures have crossed the 40-degree mark in a number of states, which is unusual for this part of the season, and the situation has become unbearable due to rampant tree felling," he said.

Thousands of trees are being cut for roads and highways, turning asphalt surfaces into heat traps. Compensatory afforestation does not help because agencies do not always plant trees near the areas where forests have been lost, Gupta said. PTI GVS GVS SZM SZM