Mumbai: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka called the proposed felling of 45,000 mangroves for the Versova-Bhayander coastal road “staggering” and said an independent assessment of the project could have reduced the ecological damage. He said courts could have insisted on deeper, independent scrutiny before permitting such large-scale diversion. Justice Oka, known for his landmark 2018 ruling that treated mangroves as part of citizens’ fundamental rights, said, had there been an independent assessment, the number of mangroves to be cut could have been brought down. He made the remarks while responding to questions at the 45th JP Memorial Lecture organised by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties at Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh late Monday evening.The remarks came amid growing concern over the clearance granted by the Bombay high court and the Supreme Court for the project, with environmentalists and fishing communities warning of long-term ecological consequences. Responding to a query from NatConnect Foundation on compensatory afforestation, Justice Oka said plantation must ideally be carried out in the same ecological zone where the loss occurs. Current practices allowing plantations in distant districts such as Jalna or Chandrapur fail to replace the specific coastal functions of mangroves, the questioner said, underscoring the limits of compensation. NatConnect Foundation termed the issue “Mumbai’s Aravalli moment” and moved the Chief Justice of India seeking a review of the ruling permitting mangrove diversion, citing the Supreme Court’s earlier reconsideration of the Aravalli case. In its representation, NatConnect said it was not opposed to infrastructure development but argued that the destruction of mangroves, described as critical natural buffers, could expose Mumbai to heightened flood risks, coastal erosion and climate shocks. “Such ecological loss is irreversible and cannot be meaningfully compensated elsewhere,” the letter noted. With the Chief Justice of India recently welcoming constructive feedback on court rulings, NatConnect said this transparency strengthens the case for a review. It urged the court to order an independent reassessment of the project, factoring in current climate science and cumulative ecological risks. It also suggested exploring alternative alignments or elevated coastal road designs to minimise damage. Environmentalists said global warnings on rising sea levels were being overlooked despite civic acknowledgements that several parts of Mumbai face submergence risks. They pointed to the July 26, 2005, floods as a reminder of the city’s vulnerability, lessons from which remain only partially implemented. Questions were also raised about past planning choices, including the development of the Bandra-Kurla Complex on reclaimed, mangrove-rich land. The NatConnect letter to the Chief Justice of India said climate stress was no longer a distant threat, but an unfolding reality marked by recurrent flooding and coastal strain. “What is being erased today may return as a crisis tomorrow,” it said, calling for development that does not compromise long-term resilience.
