The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (BMRCL) has moved an application before the Karnataka High Court seeking permission to fell trees for the proposed JP Nagar fourth Phase–Mysuru Road rail line. The interim application forms part of a public interest litigation initiated in 2018 by Bangalore Environment Trust and environmentalist Dattatraya Devare concerning preservation of the city's tree cover. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. M. Poonacha directed state authorities to compile compliance reports and consult the petitioners, and listed the matter for April 10.

During the hearing, BMRCL sought permission to implement an office memorandum from the Tree Expert Committee to fell or translocate trees in relation to the newly proposed metro line. The rail corporation said it issued a public notice inviting objections and that field forest officers had inspected the route and submitted a report. The counsel stated that there are 2,184 trees in the project area and that some will require cutting or translocation to prevent impediments to development.

The authority also provided details of tree numbering and studies on translocation viability, and identified receptor sites for the relocated trees while furnishing reports of prior translocation exercises. The petitioners objected to the application on grounds of alleged non?compliance with earlier court directions and the absence of filed compensatory afforestation reports. The court observed that checks and balances are necessary to ensure adherence to prior orders.

The petitioners urged the court to direct the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to complete a Tree Census ordered in 2019 under the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, noting that no census has been carried out under the Act for 49 years. They said project proponents have shifted compensatory plantation duties to the Greater Bengaluru Authority, which has proposed planting 50,000 trees without providing detailed plans. The PIL seeks directions to enforce guidelines, to ensure replacement planting at the same site under Section 8(5), and to challenge an amendment that sets a threshold of 50 trees for public notice.