Latest news with #CAPFIMS
Hindustan Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Flagging ‘blatant breach', SC closes contempt against DDA
The Supreme Court on Wednesday held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in contempt for illegally felling over 1,000 trees in Delhi's Ridge area without its permission, calling the move a blatant breach of environmental norms and judicial orders. However, the court spared stringent action against top DDA officials, citing the 'overwhelming public interest' served by a new road leading to a multi-specialty hospital for the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the illegal tree-felling for the road to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) was a 'classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach.' 'It is only the overwhelming public interest served by the establishment of CAPFIMS that has, in effect, overshadowed the sheer administrative incompetence and blatant disregard for both established procedures and the orders of this court,' the bench observed. The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea. In March, it had dismissed the DDA's application seeking permission to fell trees in the Ridge area, noting that many of the trees had already been cut. The 1996 judgment in MC Mehta vs Union of India makes it mandatory for prior approval from the Supreme Court for any tree-felling in the ecologically sensitive Ridge. DDA's internal inquiry had named executive engineer Manoj Kumar Yadav, officials Pawan Kumar and Ayush Saraswat, and superintendent engineer Pankaj Verma for suppressing facts from the court. While sparing them imprisonment, the court imposed an environmental fee of ₹25,000 on each, directed departmental action, and issued an official 'censure.' 'These acts... fall squarely within the ambit of 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,' the court said. 'It is the good fortune of the concerned DDA officials that this larger objective has weighed in their favour, without which this court may have been compelled to adopt a far more stringent approach and deal with an iron fist,' it added. To prevent future violations, the bench mandated that all orders or notifications relating to tree felling, afforestation, or construction activity with ecological impact must explicitly mention any pending cases before the court. 'This direction is being issued to ensure that, in future, the plea of ignorance is not taken as a defence,' the order stated. The petition, argued by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and assisted by advocate Manan Verma, detailed how trees were felled in February 2024 under orders from Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena, issued under the Delhi Protection of Trees Act. The tree felling was completed before DDA's application for permission was even heard on March 4. The court was later told that Saxena only became aware of the felling in June, when informed by the DDA vice-chairperson. 'Such actions raise fundamental concerns about governance and accountability,' the court said. 'We truly hope that these proceedings have been conducive to incorporating necessary course corrections by the DDA and other bodies.' To compensate for the environmental damage, the court accepted DDA's proposal to undertake a large-scale afforestation drive over 180 acres. A court-nominated panel—comprising former Indian Forest Service officer Ishwar Singh, ex-principal chief conservator of forests Sunil Limaye, and environmentalist Pradip Kishen—will inspect the land and recommend suitable native species, planting methodology, and post-care maintenance. The Delhi government's forest department has been directed to implement the plantation, while DDA will bear the costs. The court ordered biannual progress reports from the DDA and Delhi government, complete with photographs and videos. It also asked both agencies to implement a separate expert report recommending steps to enhance Delhi's green cover. As a further safeguard, the court allowed the Delhi government and DDA to identify whether the new road had disproportionately benefited any affluent individuals and to levy a one-time charge on them in proportion to the construction cost. The court, however, cleared the way for completion of the road project. 'The die is cast, and what is done cannot now be undone—any refusal to put institutions like CAPFIMS to optimal use or to undo road construction at this stage risks not only undermining public interest but also squandering significant public resources,' it noted. The bench concluded by acknowledging the necessity of such medical facilities for paramilitary forces, stating, 'Such institutions... are not a privilege but an imperative necessity.' Despite DDA's violations, the court accepted that its actions were in good faith and in service of the welfare state's moral compass.
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi Ridge tree-felling case: SC finds DDA officials guilty of criminal contempt, but holds its hand considering CAPFIMS' ‘overarching public interest'
'Overwhelming public interest' saw the Supreme Court restrain itself on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) from initiating contempt action against Delhi Development Authority officials and its former vice-chairperson Subhashish Panda for the illegal felling of hundreds of trees in the protected ridge area without prior permission from the top court. The trees in the protected ecological area in the national capital were felled to construct a broader access road to in order to broaden the access road to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), a new tertiary hospital primarily catering to paramilitary personnel, their families, pensioners and the public. A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, in a judgment, said the cumulative action of cutting the protected trees along with concealing the fact from the apex court during proceedings 'struck at the very heart of the justice delivery system'. 'It contaminates the sanctity of judicial proceedings. It causes irreversible prejudice to parties… We are left with no hesitation to hold that the respondents' (DDA officials) conduct was gravely contumacious, and viewed cumulatively, the irreversible actions amount to blatant obstruction of justice. These actions, in our considered view, fall clearly within the ambit of criminal contempt of the court,' Justice Kant, who pronounced the verdict, said. The petitioner, Bindu Kapurea, had argued that the DDA applied to the apex court for permission to cut the trees without informing the court that the felling had already begun. Ms. Karpurea had submitted that a Forest Survey of India report counted the number of felled trees to be 1,670. However, the DDA had claimed it was 642 trees. The petitioners had alleged that the trees were chopped down on the orders of the Lieutenant Governor, who had visited the site on February 3 last year. 'The instant case is replete with institutional missteps; administrative overreach; of permissions not obtained; of court orders ignored; and the infliction of environmental degradation with impunity. The case raises concerns about governance and accountability,' Justice Kant noted. However, the court was conscious of the 'overwhelming public interest' which had underlined the actions of the DDA. 'Though the DDA officials were in flagrant contempt of the Supreme Court orders, the underlining objective was to facilitate, improve and gain access through broader roads,' the court said. The judgment differentiated between a 'malafide exercise of power and genuine administrative misjudgment'. It said the current case fell within the latter category. 'CAPFIMS is an institution which would primarily function as a tertiary care hospital to cater to the medical needs of the personnel serving in the paramilitary services like BSF, CRPF,ITBP and others, who in the discharge of their duties to the nation are in the line of grave risk,' Justice Kant pointed out. The court said such institutions to ensure that the families of paramilitary personnel, often stationed in remote areas without basic communications, would get world class medical care. 'Ensuring access to quality medical care is not a privilege but an imperative necessity. It is essential and urgent. The noble objective to provide such a medical institution is not just an administrative act, but reflects the moral compass of a welfare State and involves parens patriae… A better road to such an institution to allow emergency vehicles, ambulances easy access to the facility would save the lives of those who routinely safeguard our nation… Overarching public interest weighs heavily on the conscience of this court,' Justice Kant explained the reason for not taking contempt action. Instead, Mr. Panda was let off and the remaining DDA officials involved in the tree felling were directed to pay Rs. 25000 each towards the afforestation effort. The Delhi government and the DDA would charge a one-time levy commensurate with the proportion cost of construction from land owners along the proposed road, who would benefit from it. The levy would be fixed as per the principles of natural justice. The court further constituted a three-member committee of conservationists Sunil Limaye, Pradip Krishen and Sumer Singh to oversee and monitor the afforestation effort in a 185-acre land. The court has asked for periodic reports on the afforestation.
