State of Telangana vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (India)

The case originated from a piece of land that was designated as a reserved forest by the state in 1960. The respondent (then plaintiff) filed an application to be declared the owner of the land. The High Court determined that the respondent was unable to demonstrate his title to the property, which is, in fact, forest land. Subsequently, however, the state reversed its stance on the basis of a supposed error in the land survey. The respondent then cited this new evidence as grounds for invoking the High Court's review jurisdiction, which resulted in a reversal of the earlier ruling. 

However, the Supreme Court ruled that both the state and the High Court had acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court highlighted the obligations of the Indian state towards its forests. The Court also cited environmental and climate justice, the economic value of forests, the rights of nature, and ecocentrism. The court ruled that every court has a constitutional duty to protect and preserve the environment. In light of this constitutional mandate, courts must apply the principle of parens patriae.