SC FINES DDA OFFICIALS Rs.25K EACH FOR ILLEGAL TREE FELLING IN DELHI RIDGE:

In the contempt case concerning illegal tree felling in the Delhi Ridge, the Supreme Court strongly criticized officials of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for cutting down trees without the Court's prior approval. The felling was carried out as part of a road widening project aimed at improving access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital.

"As a nation routed in rule of law, there is immense faith placed in judiciary...when there is willful disregard, court ought to take strict view. We have divided the conduct into 2 parts - simpliciter non-compliance with requirement to seek permission and deliberate concealing from court that tree-felling had already [occurred]. Conscious non-disclosure strikes at heart of judicial process, may cause prejudice and carried potential to...respondents' conduct has been contemptuous. Their acts fall in scope of criminal contempt."

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh further ordered that henceforth, any notification or directive related to afforestation, road construction, tree felling, or any activity with possible ecological impact must clearly state that related proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.

"Henceforth, every notification or order regarding afforestation, road construction, tree felling or any activity with 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 Court held.

The Supreme Court closed the contempt proceedings against Subhashish Panda, the former Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), noting that he is no longer associated with the organization. However, the Court imposed an environmental compensation of Rs.25,000 each on the remaining officials, in addition to and without affecting any departmental action that may be initiated against them. A formal censure was also issued. The Court described the situation as a “classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach,” citing the officials' failure to seek the Court’s permission, their disregard for its orders, and the consequent environmental damage.

While delivering the judgment, Justice Surya Kant observed that the respondents had admitted to not complying with the Court’s previous directions. The Court framed the key issue as whether the breach of its orders was “willful and deliberate,” and if so, what remedial measures were necessary to purge the contempt. It also recognized that the road widening project aimed to facilitate access to the CAPFIMS Hospital, which serves paramilitary personnel. The Court emphasized that, as a constitutional court, it must weigh decisions through the lens of larger public interest and is guided by the principles of “constitutional morality” and “social justice.”

"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 necessity...it is imperative to recognize the importance of such institutions for military personnels and their families...such individuals remain voiceless...over-arching public interest lays heavily with us..." In this view, the court issued comprehensive directions-

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to undertake urgent joint measures within a three-month period, under the supervision of a committee constituted by the Court. This committee is tasked with overseeing the identification of 185 acres of land and framing a detailed afforestation plan, which will be implemented by the Forest Department under the committee’s guidance. The entire cost of the afforestation initiative is to be borne by the DDA. Additionally, the DDA and the Forest Department must submit a joint report demonstrating the upkeep and maintenance of the afforested areas. The DDA and GNCTD are also required to implement broader measures, as recommended by the committee, aimed at enhancing Delhi’s overall green cover. The Court stressed that these directives are mandatory, and periodic compliance reports must be submitted before it.

The Supreme Court directed the Delhi Government to identify the beneficiaries of the road widening project in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Based on this identification, a one-time levy proportional to the cost of construction is to be imposed on the beneficiaries. The Court had earlier reserved its judgment in the matter on January 21. The case involved two pending contempt petitions related to illegal tree felling in the same region—one arising from the MC Mehta case before Justice Abhay Oka’s bench, and the other from the TN Godavarman case heard by the bench of Justice B.R. Gavai (now the Chief Justice of India).

The unauthorized tree felling was carried out for the road widening project covering stretches from Main Chhattarpur Road to SAARC Chowk, Gaushala Road Row, and from SAARC Chowk to the CAPFIMS Hospital Row. An expert committee appointed by Justice Oka’s bench reported that trees within the Delhi Ridge were removed without conducting necessary assessments related to rainwater harvesting, ecological restoration, and other environmental safeguards. The contempt petitioners alleged that the project was deliberately routed through the Ridge to avoid the complex land acquisition process that would have been required had the alternative route passed through the Chhattarpur farmhouse area.