Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court in the Delhi Ridge Tree Felling contempt case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) rapped DDA officials for felling trees in the Delhi Ridge area without the Court's permission for a road widening project intended to facilitate access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital.

"As a nation routed in rule of law, there is immense faith placed in judiciary...when there is willful disregard, court ought to take strict view. We have divided the conduct into 2 parts - simpliciter non-compliance with requirement to seek permission and deliberate concealing from court that tree-felling had already [occurred]. Conscious non-disclosure strikes at heart of judicial process, may cause prejudice and carried potential to...respondents' conduct has been contemptuous. Their acts fall in scope of criminal contempt."

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh further directed that from now on, every notification or order regarding afforestation, road construction, tree felling or any activity with potential ecological effect must explicitly mention the pendency of the relevant proceedings before this Court.

"Henceforth, every notification or order regarding afforestation, road construction, tree felling or any activity with potential ecological effect must explicitly mention the pendency of the relevant proceedings before this Court. This is directed so that ignorance is not taken as a defence in future", the Court held.

The Court closed contempt proceedings against Subhashish Panda, former DDA Vice Chairman, who is no longer associated with the DDA. However, it imposed an environmental fee of Rs. 25,000 each on other officials, in addition to and without prejudice to any departmental action that may be taken.

A formal censure was also issued against them. The Court remarked that this was a “classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach,” marked by failure to obtain permission, disregard for Court orders, and resultant environmental degradation.

Justice Surya Kant, while pronouncing the judgment, stated that the respondents had acknowledged their failure to comply with the Court's earlier directions. The court framed the issue as whether the breach of this Court's orders was willful and deliberate, and, if so, what steps were required to purge the contempt.

The Court acknowledged that the road widening project was undertaken to serve the CAPFIMS Hospital, which caters to the needs of paramilitary personnel. The Court said that the constitutional court has a duty to consider decisions of larger public interest, and is guided in its decisions by principle of constitutional morality, social justice.

"The Hospital (for which road widening was carried out) was to cater to needs of paramilitary jawans...ensuring access to quality medical care is not a privilege, but necessity...it is imperative to recognize the importance of such institutions for military personnels and their families...such individuals remain voiceless...over-arching public interest lays heavily with us..." In this view, the court issued comprehensive directions -

The Court directed that urgent measures be undertaken jointly by the DDA and the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) within three months. A committee constituted by the Court will oversee this process.

The Court also directed the identification of 185 acres of land, the details of which are to be reported to the committee. If

The committee has to frame an afforestation plan, which the Forest Department will implement under its supervision. The entire cost of the afforestation will be borne by the DDA.

The DDA and the Forest Department have to submit a joint report evidencing the upkeep of the afforested areas.

Additionally, the DDA and the GNCTD must implement further comprehensive measures, as prescribed by the committee, to enhance Delhi's green cover.

The Court emphasised that these directions are binding, and the parties must file periodic compliance reports before the Court.

The Delhi Government, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, has to identify the beneficiaries of the road widening project. Based on this identification, a one-time levy commensurate with the cost of construction will be imposed.

The Court had reserved its decision in the matter on January 21. There were two pending contempt cases pertaining to tree-felling in the same area, one originating from Justice Abhay Oka's bench (MC Mehta case) and another from Justice BR Gavai's (now CJI) bench (TN Godavarman case).

The felling of trees was done for the road widening project from Main Chhattarpur Road to SAARC Chowk, Gaushala Road Row and from SAARC Chowk to CAPFIMS (Hospital) Row. An expert committee constituted by Justice Oka's bench submitted a report that the trees in the Delhi Ridge were cleared for the road widening project without undertaking prior assessments on rainwater harvesting, restoration etc. The contempt petitioners alleged that the road widening was done to avoid cumbersome land acquisition process in the event of taking the alternative route through the farmhouses in Chhattarpur area.

Background

The matter was heard on several days in June-July 2024 by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, during which the DDA and its Vice Chairman had to face several tough questions from the bench. During the hearings, the bench had observed that the materials indicated the role of Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, who happens to be Chairman of the DDA, in ordering the tree felling in Delhi's ridge forest. The bench also minced no words in pulling up the DDA for "cover-ups". At the last hearing on July 12, the bench had warned that it would issue contempt notice to the LG and posted the matter for further hearing on July 31.

Meanwhile, on July 24, another bench led by Justice BR Gavai (now CJI), took objection to Justice Oka's bench taking up the contempt petition. Justice Gavai observed that his bench had issued notice to the DDA on a contempt petition (filed by another petitioner) with respect to the same tree felling much before Justice Oka's bench initiated the proceedings. The bench led by Justice Gavai, noticing the parallel proceedings, referred the matter to the then Chief Justice of India and opined that all matters pertaining to the Delhi ridge forest be dealt with by one single bench.

After this order of Justice Gavai's bench, the matter was not listed before Justice Oka's bench on the scheduled date of July 31. It was shifted to the bench led by former CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Subsequently, CJI Khanna recused from hearing the matter and it reached a bench led by Justice Surya Kant.

During the hearing, Justice Kant's bench clarified that it would consider the matter from a fresh perspective without being influenced by the views of the previous two benches. On the day orders were reserved, while acknowledging that illegal tree felling had taken place, Justice Kant posed to Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan as to the extent of the contempt since the felling was done keeping in mind the larger project for paramilitary jawans.

Case Title:

(1) Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda, Dairy No. 21171-2024

(2) In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA, SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024

(3) In Re: TN Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995