Supreme Court Closes Contempt Proceedings With Strict Directives | Orders Afforestation, Environmental Fee On DDA For Delhi Ridge Tree Felling | Warns Against Recurrence
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh has concluded that officers of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) committed wilful disobedience of binding judicial directions related to the preservation of Delhi's Ridge Forest area. The Court found that a significant number of trees were felled without obtaining mandatory prior permission, violating its longstanding orders. In response, the Court initiated contempt proceedings, directed the suspension of involved officials, and appointed an independent committee to oversee ecological restoration efforts.
Despite establishing that the contempt was both deliberate and grave, the Court refrained from punitive incarceration due to the overarching public interest served by the development of the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS). The Court stated that its indulgence should not be misconstrued as leniency and strictly warned against recurrence. The contempt petitions were disposed of with specific compliance directions, including afforestation measures, cost imposition, and institutional reforms to prevent further breaches.
The matter originated from proceedings under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, wherein the Supreme Court was approached regarding alleged violations of its directions dated 09.05.1996 in MC Mehta v. Union of India & Others. The directions were issued to preserve the Delhi Ridge—a critical ecological area in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
The petition arose in the context of tree felling and road construction activities undertaken by the DDA in the Southern Ridge region to facilitate access to institutions including SAARC University and the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS). The Petitioner alleged that these activities were carried out without obtaining the Court’s permission, as required by its prior orders.
The Court was informed that the Delhi Ridge area, referred to as the 'Lungs of Delhi,' spans approximately 7,777 hectares and is part of the Aravalli range. The Master Plan for Delhi (Perspective 2001), notified by the Delhi Development Authority in 1990, mandated the protection of the Ridge and prohibited encroachment.
To enforce this, the Court had earlier directed the establishment of the Ridge Management Board (RMB) and instructed that any developmental activity in the Ridge area be preceded by approval from RMB and thereafter the Court, based on the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
In 2023, the DDA submitted a proposal to construct two approach roads within the Ridge area, which involved the use of 3.60 hectares of forest land and 0.968 hectares of Morphological Ridge land, requiring the felling of over 1,000 trees. The DDA cited infrastructural needs for residential and institutional development in the region.
The CEC conditionally approved the proposal in December 2023, subject to statutory clearances, compensatory afforestation, and deposit of project-related costs. Following this, a Gazette Notification was issued on 14.02.2024 exempting certain requirements under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. However, permission from this Court remained pending.
Despite this, on 23.02.2024, the Petitioner noticed active tree felling at the site. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the activity was proceeding based on the Gazette Notification, even though the Court had not granted permission. An application filed by the DDA on 15.02.2024 to seek such permission was dismissed on 04.03.2024 due to vagueness.
Following this, contempt proceedings were initiated. During hearings in May and June 2024, the Court issued directions to halt further felling and appointed an independent committee of environmentalists, assisted by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), to investigate the matter. Affidavits revealed that no permission had been obtained and that facts were suppressed during the 04.03.2024 hearing.
An internal inquiry held certain DDA officers responsible, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Court examined affidavits from several stakeholders, including the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi, who clarified that no instruction had been given for tree felling. The FSI report later confirmed that approximately 1,670 trees were felled, contradicting earlier claims.
The Court stated in clear terms, "No permission had been granted by this Court for the felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge area, thereby amounting to a non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 09.05.1996."
It further recorded, "The omission to disclose, during the hearing on 04.03.2024, that tree felling had already commenced on 16.02.2024... constitutes wilful disobedience that palpably obstructed the administration of justice."
The Bench elaborated on the gravity of such conduct, noting, "Such acts... must be recognised as a serious affront to the Rule of Law itself... warranting appropriate punishment without any misplaced sympathy."
However, the Court acknowledged that the objective behind the road construction—to improve access to CAPFIMS—was not motivated by mala fide intentions. It stated, "The underlying objective... does not seem to be in bad faith and certainly not to defy the authority of this Court."
Addressing the significance of CAPFIMS, the Court observed, "Ensuring access to quality medical care is not a privilege but an imperative necessity... reflecting the moral compass of a welfare state."
Nonetheless, the Court stressed the ecological loss: "The reckless decimation of a substantial portion of the Delhi Ridge... has resulted in an alarming loss of biodiversity." It recognized the ecological importance of the Ridge as home to various life forms and stated restoration.
The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of time-bound remedial measures in response to the ecological damage caused.
- The DDA, in coordination with GNCTD, must undertake restoration within three months under the oversight of a Court-constituted Committee comprising Shri Ishwar Singh, Shri Sunil Limaye, and Shri Pradip Krishen.
- The DDA must facilitate a site visit to assess the suitability of 185 acres of land identified for compensatory afforestation.
- Upon approval, the Committee may plan plantation strategies, select native species, and implement survival monitoring and post-plantation care.
- The monsoon season must be leveraged for afforestation.
- The Forest Department will work under the Committee’s supervision, with all expenses borne by the DDA. It must maintain detailed records on sapling health, survival, and mortality.
- Joint bi-annual compliance reports by DDA and the Forest Department must be submitted to the Court with visual documentation and verified by the Committee.
- These directives apply equally to ongoing afforestation projects claimed by the DDA.
- The DDA, GNCTD, and Forest Department are directed to fully implement the Committee’s final report recommendations to restore Delhi’s green cover, with supervision and reporting to the Court.
- These directions also extend to I.A. No. 98622/2024 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995 concerning diversion of 6,200 sqm of Morphological Ridge land at Vasant Kunj.
- The DDA must also resume and complete construction of halted approach roads, and explore planting dense green cover along the roads.
- GNCTD and DDA must identify affluent individuals benefiting from the road project and may levy a one-time fee based on proportional gain, consistent with principles of natural justice.
- Proceedings against the First Respondent are closed. However, other culpable DDA officers must each pay ₹25,000 as an environmental fee to the Forest Department, in addition to facing departmental censure and any disciplinary actions.
- Departmental proceedings against the erring officials must conclude within six months.
- Related contempt petitions before the Delhi High Court are also disposed of in view of these directions.
The Supreme Court recorded its appreciation for the Court-appointed Committee’s diligent efforts, noting their contributions were pivotal to resolving the matter judiciously.
The Bench also acknowledged the valuable assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae—Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, and Mr. A.D.N. Rao.
The Court expressed grave concern over the DDA’s conduct, terming it a "classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach," marked by ignored permissions and blatant environmental harm.
It warned that any recurrence of such actions would invite severe consequences and that leniency in this instance was solely due to the overarching public interest served by CAPFIMS.
The DDA was directed to henceforth ensure that every notification or order related to ecological matters explicitly mention any pending proceedings before the Court.
The matter is to be listed after submission of the first compliance report by the DDA.
Case Title: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 784
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 4677 / 1985
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
[Read/Download order]
