logo
Supreme Court greenlights work of Metro Phase IV after DMRC assurance

Supreme Court greenlights work of Metro Phase IV after DMRC assurance

Indian Express30-04-2025
With the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) agreeing to 'strictly abide' by the conditions set by the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC), the top court on Tuesday allowed the Corporation to go ahead with the construction work for Phase IV of the Delhi Metro. The bench had earlier asked the CEC to examine the DMRC's request for permission to undertake the work.
Even as it has given a nod to the construction in the ecologically sensitive morphological ridge area, the CEC has set 10 conditions, underlining the need to safeguard trees, a report revealed. The Phase IV of the Delhi Metro construction that will cover 28,685 square metres of protected area, includes parts near Jhandewalan and Pushpa Bhawan, stated the CEC report dated April 25.
The DMRC has to safeguard trees and take prior permission under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act for felling or pruning; deposit 5% of the project cost with the Ridge Management Board for conservation efforts.; plant 1,280 indigenous trees on non-forest land as compensation, and transplant affected trees under expert supervision. These are among the conditions underlined by the panel. (see box)
In Phase IV, two metro corridors — Inderlok to Indraprastha and Lajpat Nagar to Saket G Block — are set to cut through the land identified as having features similar to the Ridge, a rocky outcrop of the Aravallis that plays a crucial ecological role in Delhi and is protected through court rulings.
While the first corridor affects around 20,915 square metres of ridge-like land and 122 trees, the second corridor, after design revisions, will use 7,770 square metres and avoid felling any trees, requiring only the pruning of six. In its proposal, the DMRC had stated that the corridors were approved by the Union Cabinet in March 2024 and are scheduled to be commissioned by 2029. For this, works for the construction of civil works had to start by April, it said.
The report revealed that the CEC pulled up DMRC for non-compliance in the expansion phases earlier. In one such violation that it flagged, DMRC started construction on forest land in 2020 between Janakpuri and Mukarba Chowk without prior clearance. A notice was issued to then Chief Project Manager C P Singh for violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, no reply was received. To this, the CEC in its latest report recommended 'legal action' by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India (MoEFCC) against Singh.
Highlighting another instance of non-compliance, the CEC noted that the DMRC failed to complete a Supreme Court-mandated Ridge Interpretation Centre near Patel Chowk Metro Station, which was planned to educate the public on Ridge's ecology. However, the panel also observed that the status of progress is 'satisfactory', as DMRC has mentioned this would be completed by April 2026.
On Tuesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the DMRC, told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih that it will abide by the conditions set by the panel. The bench in its order underlined, 'Solicitor General Tushar Mehta says DMRC would strictly abide by the above conditions. In that view of the matter, the application (by DMRC) is allowed. However, it is directed that the DMRC shall scrupulously comply with the conditions as imposed by the CEC.'
The Ridge Management Board (RMB) was constituted in October 1995 following a Supreme Court order. The Board had become the nodal body for allowing any diversion of land for non-forest use on the Ridge. Its domain was extended to the Morphological Ridge also.
The legal status of morphological ridge was reinforced through various judicial rulings, including a Delhi High Court order in a 2011 case, wherein the court upheld that any construction in such areas requires approval from the Ridge Management Board or the Supreme Court-appointed CEC in 2002.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

SC clears way for landfill in Mumbai's Kanjurmarg, stays Bombay HC order
SC clears way for landfill in Mumbai's Kanjurmarg, stays Bombay HC order

Hans India

time11 minutes ago

  • Hans India

SC clears way for landfill in Mumbai's Kanjurmarg, stays Bombay HC order

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Bombay High Court decision, which had restored nearly 120 hectares of land in Mumbai's Kanjurmarg area as a "protected forest". The interim relief, granted by a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, comes as a temporary reprieve to the Brihannumbai Municipal Corporation, allowing the civic body to continue developing the site as a landfill for garbage disposal. Appearing before the apex court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the land in question had historically been used as a landfill and was mistakenly notified as a "protected forest". He added that the notification of the disputed land as a 'protected forest' was inadvertent, prompting the Maharashtra government to issue a de-notification to allow its continued use for waste management. After hearing the submissions, the apex court remarked: "We will stay the order." In its judgement passed on May 2, the Bombay High Court quashed the state government's notification de-notifying 119.91 hectares of protected forest land at Kanjurmarg, which had originally been classified as "protected forest" under a 2008 notification. A Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan had rejected the state government's contention that the original notification was issued in error and a 2003 Supreme Court order permitted the usage of the site as a landfill. The Justice Kulkarni-led Bench observed that the original classification notifying the land in question as a 'protected forest' was based on satellite imaging, ground-truthing, and earlier judicial orders related to mangrove protection. Quashing the subsequent notification, it ruled that the de-notification violated Section 2(1) of the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), which mandates prior approval from the Union government before diverting forest land for non-forest use. "The subject land, i.e. 119.91 hectares, is consequently restored to the status of being a protected forest. Any proposal to de-notify the same would need to be compliant with the due process stipulated in Section 2(1) of the FCA," the Bombay High Court had said, granting the civic body three months to comply with its judgment.

Centre informs Delhi HC of withdrawing nod for 'Udaipur Files' film release
Centre informs Delhi HC of withdrawing nod for 'Udaipur Files' film release

Business Standard

time11 minutes ago

  • Business Standard

Centre informs Delhi HC of withdrawing nod for 'Udaipur Files' film release

The Centre on Friday informed the Delhi High Court that it was withdrawing its decision granting nod to the release of the film 'Udaipur Files - Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder', which is scheduled to hit the theatres on August 8. A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, which was hearing two pleas challenging the Centre's decision allowing the release of the movie, directed the parties to the revision plea to appear before the government on August 4 and make their submissions. The court said no further notice was required to be issued to the parties to appear before the revisional authority, and directed that they should not seek adjournment on their appearance on Monday. "After hearing the parties, appropriate decision as per the law should be taken by the revisional authority on the revision petitions by August 6," the bench said. The court was informed by the counsel for the film's producer that the movie is scheduled to be released on August 8 and they would take some time for making arrangements for releasing it by engaging the theatres. Earlier in the day, the court questioned the Central government as to under what authority it ordered six cuts in the film while exercising its revisional powers. The court asked the Centre's counsel to take instructions from the authorities, and heard the matter again in the post-lunch session. In the second round of the hearing, the Centre's counsel informed the court that they will withdraw their order, revisit the decision and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. Noting the submissions, the court disposed of the two petitions filed by Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case, and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani. The court earlier said the Centre has to exercise the powers within the four corners of the statute and cannot go beyond that. The court was informed that while exercising its revisional powers under the Cinematograph Act, the Centre had suggested six cuts to the producers of the movie in addition to a disclaimer. The petitioner's counsel had contended before the court that the Central government exercised its revisional powers in a manner that contravened the statutory scheme of the Cinematograph Act. Section 6 of the Act grants the Central government revisional powers over film certification. The Centre's counsel had said the film has undergone a two-step filter, first by the censor board, which suggested 55 cuts, and second by the committee, which further asked for six cuts, totalling 61 cuts. "There is a body of experts and so it happens in this case that it has undergone a two-stage filter test -- first by the board which suggested 55 cuts. All those cuts were those which had purported generic overtones," he had said. Javed's counsel had submitted that his right to a fair trial was jeopardised by the release of the film and added that the film's producer has expressly said that the movie is based on the case chargesheet and even the dialogues have been lifted directly from the chargesheet. The two petitions related to the movie came before the high court following a Supreme Court direction. The top court directed the petitioners to move the high court against the Centre's revisional order of giving nod for the film's release. The producers of the film had moved the top court after a high court bench previously stayed the film's release. The apex court on July 25 said the filmmakers' appeal against the high court order staying the film's release was infructuous as they had accepted the Centre's nod on July 21 for the film's release, subject to six cuts in its scenes and modifications in the disclaimer. Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022, allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous. The assailants later released a video claiming the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet Mohammed. The case was probed by the NIA and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under the IPC. The trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.

Kerala Governor reappoints temporary Vice Chancellors after Supreme Court approval
Kerala Governor reappoints temporary Vice Chancellors after Supreme Court approval

India Today

time25 minutes ago

  • India Today

Kerala Governor reappoints temporary Vice Chancellors after Supreme Court approval

In yet another flashpoint between the Kerala Governor and the state government, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar has appointed two temporary Vice Chancellors (VCs) while the state's recommendations for permanent VCs remain pending before Ciza Thomas has been appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, and Dr K Shivaprasad will serve as the VC of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological to the Raj Bhavan, the appointments were made in compliance with a recent Supreme Court directive. The top court had permitted the appointment of temporary VCs following an appeal by the Chancellor against the Kerala High Court verdict, which had previously quashed such appointments in the two universities. The Supreme Court clarified that temporary appointments can continue until permanent VCs are in place, but their tenure must not exceed six months. The court also urged the state of Kerala to formulate a mechanism for appointing permanent VCs and called for full cooperation from the Chancellor in the court further acknowledged that appointing permanent VCs would take time. During the interim period, it stated that the Chancellor could either appoint someone new or permit the existing temporary VCs to continue, in line with the respective Acts governing the two universities.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Kerala

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store