It is true that the impact of unrelenting urbanization has been very harsh on biodiversity, as localities continue to lose trees. There is no doubt that preventing vast swathes of land from becoming green-less concrete jungle will benefit the environment and people. But questions remain about the applicability of a provision of the proposed law.
The new law will require citizens to take permission before cutting down large trees planted on personal property.
This raises questions of both legality as well as practicality.
The legality of a piece of legislation is not determined based on the presence of noble or nefarious intentions. It is based on basic constitutional and other universal principles of rights. Requiring government permission to remove trees from privately owned land seems to dangerously encroach upon citizens’ right to use private property as they please.
Enacting a law that restricts this right should be a matter of extraordinary gravity. But the proposed law seems to lack this perspective, as well as appropriate strategic foresight.
How can this law be enforced in any meaningful way when the government did not have, for example, enough inspectors to check the fitness of industrial boilers, as boiler explosions continued to kill workers? A 2017 report found that there were only six available inspectors to monitor over 5,000 boilers in the country.
The proposed law, however, does have a rather narrow scope for requiring permissions -- it does not apply to any trees, but only to “permanent trees”, which refers to big trees. This is at least one positive side against concerns of too much intrusion.
Our policymakers should seriously reconsider this provision in the new law. At the same time, the government should be finding ways to keep localities green by using public resources, not by imposing problematic restrictions on private properties.