LAHORE (Dunya News) – During the hearing of a case related to smog and environmental pollution in the Lahore High Court, Justice Shahid Karim remarked that those accused of cutting trees should not be granted bail.
The court directed that a comprehensive policy report regarding trees be presented at the next hearing and ordered the Advocate General of Punjab to appear in person.
During the proceedings, Member of the Judicial Water Commission, Syed Kamal Haider, informed the court that a meeting was held under the commission’s supervision regarding tree-related matters. It was decided that the commission would be consulted before making any decisions about cutting trees.
Justice Shahid Karim expressed strong displeasure over the late appearance of PHA’s counsel, Barrister Haris Azmat, stating that if the designated lawyer could not appear, another representative of the institution should attend the court. The court remarked that the PHA’s attitude was highly regrettable.
During the hearing, Punjab University submitted its response. The university’s counsel informed the court that a committee had been formed to take action against those responsible for cutting 60 large trees at the Sheikh Zayed Centre. So far, 500 trees have been planted at the university, and a plan to plant 100,000 more trees has also been prepared.
Justice Shahid Karim observed that the continued cutting of trees despite clear court orders was alarming and directed that a Miyawaki-style forest be planted at the historic institution of Punjab University.
The PHA’s counsel told the court that the prescribed punishments for tree cutting are negligible and that the accused are quickly released on bail. The court responded that as long as bail continues to be granted, tree cutting will not stop. The court inquired whether the Prosecutor General of Punjab had been consulted about how bail is being granted and instructed that the Advocate General of Punjab be directed to amend the law to include non-bailable provisions.
The court further stated that the action was not against any single institution but was being taken in the interest of future generations. The hearing was adjourned until February 16, with the court seeking a compliance report on that date.