IHC doubts CDA's tree study

Justice Soomro orders immediate halt to any further tree felling in the federal capital

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday expressed dissatisfaction with the Capital Development Authority's (CDA) research regarding the cutting of paper mulberry trees in the federal capital.

Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro remarked that if even a single tree is felled within Islamabad's limits, it will be treated as contempt of court and will result in punishment. The court also directed that a qualified environmental expert be produced at the next hearing.

During the hearing of a case concerning tree cutting in the capital, Justice Soomro observed that the CDA should present its arguments at the next hearing, after which the court would decide the matter.

He noted that in the past one and a half years, the court had not punished anyone for contempt, but warned that any CDA official found involved in tree cutting henceforth would face contempt proceedings.

Expressing concern, the judge remarked that it was unfortunate that institutions were being run in such a manner. He added that the court itself resides in the city and wishes to see it remain beautiful. Drawing a comparison, he said that one only needed to look at Karachi in the past and today to understand the consequences.

Counsel for the CDA informed the court that 12,800 paper mulberry trees had been removed from F-9 Park and replaced with 40,000 new trees. He further stated that the issue had been highlighted by a journalist, following which the Prime Minister's Office took notice, and the Ministry of Climate Change recommended the removal of all paper mulberry trees.

Justice Soomro observed that the law of nature does not support the notion that something growing can simply be deemed harmful. The court questioned the standard of research used to declare these trees hazardous to human life, asking whether it met internationally recognised criteria. The CDA's counsel admitted he was unaware of the category of research.

The court further inquired whether any agricultural university had been consulted and whether expert assistance had been sought. Counsel responded that he would provide details at the next hearing.

Justice Soomro expressed strong disappointment, stating that a major department of the federal capital had undertaken such an operation without credible research, adding that qualified environmental researchers should have been involved. The counsel replied that assistance had been sought from the Environmental Protection Agency.