Delhi High Court Permits Transplantation of 26 Trees for Supreme Court Expansion Project Subject to Conditions and Compliance Affidavits
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh allowed an application filed by the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) seeking permission to transplant 26 trees within the Supreme Court Complex for execution of a proposed infrastructure project. The Court permitted the transplantation subject to multiple conditions, including the filing of affidavits, status reports, site-specific documentation, and continuous monitoring. The Court further directed the concerned Tree Officer to issue a fresh speaking order within two weeks, superseding the earlier permission dated 20 January 2025. The Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government was also directed to submit a compliance affidavit regarding the status of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
The application under consideration was filed by the CPWD through its Executive Engineer as part of ongoing proceedings in a contempt petition. The CPWD sought the Court’s permission to transplant 26 trees located within the Supreme Court Complex. The purpose of the transplantation was to facilitate the “Expansion of Supreme Court Building for creating additional Court rooms including Constitutional Court, Chambers for Judges and Facilities for Lawyers and Litigants.”
According to the application, all 26 trees proposed to be transplanted were located within the Supreme Court premises. The applicant stated in its affidavit that 16 of the trees would be transplanted along the periphery of the garden between Gate A and Gate B of the Supreme Court, and the remaining 10 would be relocated near the corner of the Administrative Buildings Complex, adjacent to Gate No. 1.
In addition to the transplantation plan, the CPWD informed the Court that compensatory plantation had already been undertaken at Sundar Nursery. Specifically, 260 trees had been planted at that site, and the supporting documentation for the same was submitted. During the hearing, counsel for the respondents confirmed on record that the compensatory plantation had been completed.
The application was submitted against the backdrop of continuing proceedings concerning tree management and environmental compliance within the Delhi region. The application referenced prior judicial orders, including those dated 06.03.2024, 01.07.2024, 19.07.2024, 02.08.2024, and 20.12.2024, which dealt with aspects of tree preservation, transplantation, and the development of a uniform SOP for handling such activities.
During the hearing, the Court was also presented with a copy of the speaking order passed by the Tree Officer granting permission for the transplantation of the 26 trees. Upon perusal, the Court found that the order was not compliant with procedural and statutory expectations under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act (DPTA), particularly in light of the Court’s earlier judgment dated 28 April 2022.
To address this procedural shortcoming, the Court directed the concerned Tree Officer to issue a fresh speaking order within a stipulated timeline.
In support of the application, affidavits, photographs, and site plans were submitted to establish compliance with statutory obligations. The Court considered the scale and importance of the proposed expansion of the Supreme Court and the infrastructural constraints that necessitated the relocation of the trees.
The Court further addressed the question of oversight and accountability by requiring multiple responsible officers—including officials from the CPWD, the Tree Authority, and the Delhi Government—to monitor, report, and ensure scientific transplantation and maintenance of the relocated trees.
The matter involved several stakeholders, including amici curiae, legal counsel representing the municipal and forest authorities, and officers from the Delhi Government. The submissions made before the Court reflected the overlapping roles of administrative departments, environmental bodies, and urban development authorities in addressing the ecological implications of infrastructure projects in Delhi.
Justice Jasmeet Singh recorded the nature of the application as follows: “This is an application filed by the Central Public Works Department (‘CPWD’) represented through its Executive Engineer seeking permission of this court to transplant 26 number of trees to carry out the project work namely ‘Expansion of Supreme Court Building for creating additional Court rooms including Constitutional Court, Chambers for Judges and Facilities for Lawyers and Litigants.’”
The Court noted the details of the transplantation plan: “As per the application, the 26 trees are to be transplanted within the Supreme Court Complex... out of the 26 trees to be transplanted, 16 trees are to be transplanted along the periphery of garden between gate A and B; and 10 trees are to be transplanted near the corner of Administrative Buildings Complex, adjacent to Gate No. 1.”
The Court acknowledged the compliance with compensatory plantation obligations: “Additionally, the applicant has also made a compensatory plantation of 260 tress at Sundar Nursery.”
It was recorded that counsel for the respondent confirmed this plantation on record: “Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent states that the compensatory plantation has already been done.”
In view of the nature of the project, the Court stated: “Given that the proposed project pertains to the expansion of the Supreme Court building to accommodate additional courtrooms, including a dedicated Constitutional Court, as well as chambers for judges and essential facilities for lawyers and litigants, the present application needs to be allowed, subject to certain conditions which are mentioned below.”
The Court also examined the permission granted by the Tree Officer and noted deficiencies: “My attention has been drawn to the speaking order pertaining to the grant of permission of 26 trees for carrying out the project work at the Supreme Court Complex... To my mind, the same is not a speaking order.”
Regarding statutory compliance and procedural safeguards, the Court directed: “In order to ensure that the Tree officer passes speaking order keeping in view the spirit of DPTA and the order dated 28.04.2022, it is directed that the concerned Tree Officer shall pass a fresh speaking order within 2 weeks from the date of the release of this order in supercession of the order dated 20.01.2025.”
The Court concluded its findings with: “The present application is allowed subject to the above.”
The High Court allowed the application and imposed specific compliance-related conditions on the applicant and other authorities. The Court directed that the CPWD shall file an affidavit of a responsible officer indicating the status of the 26 transplanted trees and the compensatory plantation of 260 trees at Sundar Nursery. This affidavit must be submitted within two weeks from the date of the order.
The CPWD was further directed to furnish photographic evidence after transplantation of the 26 trees, enabling the amici curiae to assess the upkeep and maintenance of the trees. Additionally, the CPWD must obtain necessary permissions from the concerned municipal authorities to explore the possibility of planting more trees on the road leading to the Supreme Court.
The Court mandated that the concerned Tree Officer shall depute a responsible officer during the pruning of the transplanted trees to ensure that the process is carried out scientifically. The Court noted that heavy pruning in previous cases had led to deterioration, turning trees into “mere logs of wood incapable of rejuvenating.” The Deputy Conservator of Forests was also instructed to file an affidavit in compliance.
The CPWD was directed to file a site-specific transplantation report and, going forward, to file annual affidavits indicating the survival rate and health status of both the transplanted trees and the compensatory plantations.
Additionally, the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government was directed to file an affidavit indicating the status of the Standard Operating Procedure, as referenced in the Court’s prior orders dated 06.03.2024, 01.07.2024, 19.07.2024, 02.08.2024, and 20.12.2024. This affidavit is to be filed within two weeks from the release of the current order.
Finally, the Court ordered that the concerned Tree Officer shall pass a fresh speaking order within two weeks, in supersession of the previous order dated 20.01.2025, in line with the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act and the Court’s previous judgment dated 28.04.2022.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae), with Ms. Asmita Singh, Mr. Anirudh Anand, Mr. Tushar Nain, Mr. Punish Handa, Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Pratyush Jain; Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae), with Mr. Eish Kesarwani
For the Respondents: Mr. Farman Ali, SPC; Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, SPC with Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Harshita Chaturvedi, Mr. Siddhant Nagar; Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. S.K. Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Mayank Madhu, Mr. S.S. Siddiqui; Mr. Sarosh Ali for North Forest Division; Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, Mr. Khubaib Shakeel; Mr. Sudhir Mishra, Ms. Petel Chandhiok; Ms. Vaishali Gupta; Ms. Avni Singh, PC
Case Title: Bhavreen Kandhari v. Shri C. D. Singh and Others
Case Number: CM APPL. 4623/2025 in CONT.CAS(C) 1149/2022
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh, Single Bench
[Read/Download order]
