Delhi body officials fined for tree felling in Ridge area, relief for Lt Governor
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials accountable for contempt over felling trees in the Delhi Ridge area, while closing contempt proceedings against the DDA Vice-Chairman Subhasish Panda, observing that he was not holding the post any longer.The bench further ordered the DDA officials -- found guilty of initiating a road-widening project in an ecologically sensitive area meant to ease access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital -- to pay a hefty fine of Rs 25,000 each.advertisementThe court held that the actions of the DDA officials clearly amounted to contempt, as it was against an earlier 1996 ruling wherein a clearance from the Supreme Court was required for tree-felling activities.
However, while holding the DDA accountable for contempt, the court decided to close the case against errant officers by ordering a fine, noting that it was more of a lapse in judgement on the part of the officials. It further opined that the tree-felling was done for a good purpose, stating that there was no malafide intent.The bench ordered afforestation, with the cost to be borne by the DDA, and directed the formation of a three-member committee to safeguard Delhi's green corridor."This is a case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach. It raises strong questions on accountability," the bench noted.advertisementThe order came as a major relief to Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) VK Saxena, who was earlier pulled up by a bench led by Justice AS Oka.Even while the LG was not a party to the contempt case, a bench led by then-Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud subsequently demanded an explanation from LG Saxena.In an affidavit, Saxena stated that he was not informed that court clearance was required for the tree felling until after the process had already begun.Clearing the air, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, in today's order, directed that any activity connected to tree felling, road construction or with a 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 bench further observed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
11 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea over deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to approach High Court
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Live Events Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly " pushed back " into Bangladesh . "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 ( equality before law ) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents.
India.com
21 minutes ago
- India.com
SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Assam's Indiscriminate Deportations
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by All B.T.C. Minority Students' Union (ABMSU) raising concerns over Assam's government's 'indiscriminate' drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma suggested that the petitioner organisation approach the Gauhati High Court for appropriate relief. 'Please go to the Gauhati High Court. We are dismissing this (petition),' the apex court said. The writ petition filed by ABMSU, a social and students' organisation working in Assam's Bodoland, questioned the growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution or the top court. 'This policy of 'push back'-- being executed in border districts like Dhubri, South Salmara, and Goalpara -- is not only legally indefensible, but also threatens to render stateless numerous Indian citizens, especially those from poor and marginalised communities who were either declared foreigners ex parte or have no access to legal aid to challenge their status,' said the petition filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed. It added that such actions are directly contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, and violate binding judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, including the judgment in 'Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955' case. 'Despite these safeguards, individuals are being detained and deported without communication of Foreigners Tribunal orders, without nationality verification by the Ministry of External Affairs, and in many cases, without even being informed of their right to seek review or appeal,' contended the petition. It sought a declaration that deportation without due process, including judicial declaration, MEA verification, and exhaustion of remedies, is unconstitutional and sought remedial steps through the NHRC and legal services authorities to protect the rights of affected individuals.
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC refuses to entertain plea over deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to approach HC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order ... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh. "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents.
