Strengthening the Punjab Protection of Trees Bill, 2026… by Col. Jasjit Singh Gill (Retd) and KBS Sidhu 

A Discussion Paper

Col. Jasjit Singh Gill (Retd), a noted Ludhiana-based environmentalist — Lead Author

Karan Bir Singh Sidhu, IAS (Retd.), Former Special Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab — Supporting Author

I. A Bill Worth Welcoming — But Not a Spontaneous One

This Bill did not originate as a voluntary act of policy leadership by the State. It is the outcome of a concerted, multi-year effort by citizen-environmentalists who pressed the issue through the press, through direct representations to government, and ultimately through litigation before the National Green Tribunal.

As early as March 2023, the lead author — then a member of the Buddha Dariya Task Force — publicly called, through these very pages of the Times of India, for a scientific census and geo-tagging of urban trees, warning that the absence of any such record allowed trees to be felled with impunity; that call was echoed by fellow activists Kuldeep Khaira and Kapil Arora, against the Municipal Corporation’s own admission that no census existed.

Over the two years that followed, sustained pressure — through the National Green Tribunal, and through the advocacy of Col. Jasjit Singh Gill, the Vatrukh Foundation under Sameeta Kaur, and the Public Action Committee, Mattewara — culminated in the Tribunal’s direction to the State Government to bring a statutory tree-protection framework, on a fixed timeline, addressing private-land coverage, grievance redressal and the census. It is against that backdrop, not as an unprompted gesture of governance, that this Bill should be read.

That said, the Bill does contain features that respond to years of advocacy and deserve acknowledgment: trees on private urban land are now brought within the permission requirement, not merely government-owned trees; the compensatory planting ratio of ten trees for every tree felled, rising to twenty-five for a Heritage Tree, is a genuinely strong standard by Indian municipal norms; and the time-bound permission process, with deemed approval confined to the narrow track for dead or dangerous trees, is a sensible safeguard against delay being misused. Even so, several of the specific demands that drove this campaign — the tree census chief among them — remain unaddressed in the Bill as introduced.

II. The Spirit of This Note

What follows is offered in that same spirit of sustained, constructive engagement — not as fault-finding, but as the next stage of the advocacy that helped bring this Bill about: identifying where it still falls short of what was sought, and suggesting amendments so that a genuinely effective Act results before the Rules under Section 16 are framed.

III. Suggested Amendments

1. Let the territorial scope match the title. Section 1(b) extends the Act only to notified urban areas listed in Schedule III; Schedule I’s exemptions operate within that urban extent and do not independently bring the rest of the state under the Act. Rural Punjab — panchayat land, rural roads, village schools and buildings, cremation grounds, canal and drain banks — is thus neither covered nor exempted; it simply falls outside the extent clause.

This matters because Section 18 repeals the 2024 Policy, which on its face addressed non-forest public land generally, not only urban land — so rural public land may lose its earlier policy-level protection without gaining statutory protection in its place.

Suggested amendment: Extend Section 1(b) to read “all areas of Punjab except the exempted areas and exempted trees under Schedules I and II.” If the Government’s intention is to legislate for urban Punjab alone at this stage, the short title should say so — “The Punjab Protection of Urban Trees Act, 2026” — and a saving clause should preserve the 2024 Policy’s protections for rural public land until the Act is extended.

2. Restore the tree census. The absence of a tree census — the very demand that opened this campaign in March 2023 — was among the deficiencies flagged in the run-up to this Bill. As introduced, it contains no provision for a baseline inventory or geo-tagging of trees on public land, without which enforcement of Sections 4, 7 and 9 depends on assertion rather than fact.

Suggested amendment: Require every urban local body to complete a geo-tagged tree census of public land within a prescribed period, to be maintained by the Tree Protection Officer, made publicly accessible, and updated periodically.

3. Widen and clarify grievance redressal. Section 6(e) allows “any person aggrieved” by a Tree Protection Officer’s decision to appeal to the Appellate Authority, whose decision is final. It is unclear whether this extends to a citizen reporting unauthorised felling, as distinct from an applicant, and no further appeal beyond the Appellate Authority is specified.

Suggested amendment: Clarify that “aggrieved person” includes any resident or registered body reporting a Section 4 violation, and provide a defined further appeal — to a District Judge or the NGT — rather than leaving the Appellate Authority’s decision unqualifiedly final.

4. Close the deterrence gap. The capped fines — ten thousand rupees per illegally felled tree, two thousand for damage — are modest against the value unlocked by clearing land for construction, and the potentially more meaningful “environmental compensation” is left entirely to future notification.

Suggested amendment: Prescribe a minimum floor for environmental compensation within the Act, linked to a tree’s girth, age and species, with provision for periodic revision.

5. Bound the delegated notification power. Sections 1(b) and 14 allow the State Government to extend the Act’s area of application, and to exempt areas or species, by notification “from time to time” — meaning the Act’s real reach can shift administratively without further legislative scrutiny.

Suggested amendment: Require such notifications to be laid before the Vidhan Sabha, or reported to a standing or select committee, within a defined period.

6. Consult before the Rules are framed. Section 16 leaves much of the Act’s practical working — Form A procedures, compensation schedules, the meaning of “aggrieved person” — to Rules made by notification, precisely the stage at which the gaps above could most efficiently be closed.

Suggested amendment: Provide for a defined public consultation period, involving environmentalists, urban local bodies and affected citizens, before the Rules under Section 16 are notified.

7. Add a criminal track for aggravated offences. Section 9 as drafted is entirely civil: penalties are imposed by the Tree Protection Officer, an executive functionary, with no FIR, Magistrate or trial — recovery proceeds as an arrear of land revenue, as with unpaid property tax. This suits routine violations, but leaves no real deterrent for large-scale, repeat, or Heritage Tree violations, where a capped fine is simply a cost of doing business. Imprisonment cannot be added to Section 9 as it stands, since an executive officer cannot deprive a person of liberty without a trial; a custodial provision must run on a separate track.

Suggested amendment: Create a distinct offence, alongside the existing civil-penalty track, for aggravated violations — repeat offences, felling a Heritage Tree without the Section 5(e) exemption, or felling above a prescribed scale — punishable with imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both, with cognizance taken only on a complaint filed by the Tree Protection Officer or a designated senior officer before a Judicial Magistrate, consistent with Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section 55 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

8. Bring saplings within the definition of “tree.” Section 3(k) defines a “tree” as a woody plant with a trunk of at least thirty-five centimetres girth at ground level — a threshold that excludes every young sapling, including the compensatory saplings the Act itself mandates under Section 7. As drafted, a compensatory sapling could be destroyed with impunity, undermining Section 7’s purpose.

Suggested amendment: Insert a definition of “Sapling” as a young tree of less than thirty-five centimetres girth planted under Section 7, and bring it within Section 4’s felling and damage restrictions for a protective period — five years from planting, or until it reaches the thirty-five centimetre threshold, whichever is earlier.

9. Fix the accountability gap in the indemnity clause. Section 12 bars any suit against the State Government, or any person empowered under the Act, “for anything in good faith done or purporting to be done under this Act.” This raises a fair question: if neither the State nor the officer can be held liable, who can be held responsible when a Tree Protection Officer wrongly permits felling of a Heritage Tree, or fails to act against illegal felling? “Good faith” is undefined, and under the General Clauses Act can extend to honest but negligent conduct. Combined with Section 6(e)’s “final” Appellate Authority, a wronged citizen has no statutory remedy beyond that internal appeal, and no route to compensation or restitution for a tree wrongly lost.

Suggested amendment: Narrow Section 12 so indemnity does not extend to gross negligence or dereliction of statutory duty, and does not bar disciplinary proceedings. Provide a specific statutory route — before the District Judge or the NGT — for a citizen to seek compensation where an officer’s wrongful action or inaction directly results in loss of protected tree cover.

IV. In Closing

This Bill exists because citizens and the National Green Tribunal insisted on it, not because government moved first. Having pressed for the Bill itself, we now press, in that same spirit, for it to be made complete. The suggestions above are offered to help translate years of citizen advocacy into a fully effective instrument — for Punjab’s towns and cities as much as for its villages, its canal banks, and its countryside.

Col. Jasjit Singh Gill (Retd), a noted Ludhiana-based environmentalist — Lead Author

Karan Bir Singh Sidhu, IAS (Retd.), Former Special Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab — Supporting Author

August 19, 2026