The Supreme Court recently delivered a stern judgment against Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials in the Delhi Ridge tree-felling case. The case involved unauthorized cutting of trees for a road widening project aimed at improving access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital.
"As a nation rooted in the rule of law, there is immense faith placed in the judiciary… when there is willful disregard, the court ought to take a strict view," the Court observed. It found that the DDA not only failed to seek permission but also concealed the fact that trees were already felled. “Conscious non-disclosure strikes at the heart of judicial process,” the Court noted.
Read also: Supreme Court Urges P&H Bar Council To Ensure Transparent Bar Elections In Haryana
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh ordered that all future notifications or orders related to afforestation, road construction, or tree-felling must clearly mention the pending court proceedings. "This is directed so that ignorance is not taken as a defence in future," the bench stated.
The Court imposed a fine of ₹25,000 each on several DDA officials involved, apart from any departmental action. Former DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda, who is no longer in office, was let off from contempt proceedings, but the Court issued a formal censure.
Calling the case a “classic example of institutional missteps and administrative overreach,” the Court highlighted failures including lack of permission, disregard of court orders, and environmental damage. It acknowledged that the road widening was intended to support a hospital serving paramilitary personnel but emphasized that such acts cannot justify disobedience of legal orders.
Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of 21 High Court Judges in Major Reshuffle
"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 a necessity," the Court remarked.
The Court directed urgent joint measures by DDA and the Delhi Government within three months, with oversight from a court-appointed committee. This includes identifying 185 acres of land for afforestation, with the Forest Department implementing the plan under the committee's supervision. The DDA must bear the entire cost and submit regular progress reports.
Further, the Court instructed the Delhi Government to identify project beneficiaries and impose a one-time levy covering the construction costs.
The contempt case dates back to tree-felling for the road widening from Main Chhattarpur Road to SAARC Chowk and CAPFIMS Hospital, bypassing the alternative route through Chhattarpur farmhouses. The felling was done without prior assessments on rainwater harvesting or restoration, as highlighted by a report from an expert committee appointed by Justice Abhay Oka's bench.
Read also: Supreme Court: No Reduction of 20-Year Sentence for Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act
The case involved multiple contempt petitions, including ones in the MC Mehta and TN Godavarman matters, creating overlapping hearings. Justice Oka's bench questioned the role of Delhi Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena, DDA’s chairman, in authorizing the tree-felling. However, the matter was eventually reassigned to a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, which approached the case afresh.
The Supreme Court made it clear that environmental protection is non-negotiable and directed the DDA and the Delhi Government to ensure full compliance with its orders.
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
