29-05-2025
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.
