28 May 2025 Environment Protection >> Environmental Law  

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Bindu Kapurea v/s Subhashish Panda & Others, addressing a contempt petition concerning the unauthorized felling of trees in the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge area. Decided on May 28, 2025, by Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to environmental protection and adherence to the rule of law.

The case originated from a contempt petition filed under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It alleged willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order dated May 9, 1996, in the ongoing M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others case. The 1996 order specifically mandated that the Delhi Ridge be kept free from encroachers and its "pristine glory" maintained.

Background of the Environmental Saga:

The M.C. Mehta case, initially instituted in 1985 to address pollution of the River Ganga, evolved into a broad environmental public interest litigation, leading to landmark judgments on environmental jurisprudence and land use regulation in Delhi. The Delhi Master Plan for Delhi Perspective 2001, notified in 1990, explicitly prohibited encroachment on the Delhi Ridge, emphasizing its preservation due to its vital ecological role as the "Lungs of Delhi". In 1995, the Ridge Management Board (RMB) was constituted to protect and restore the Delhi Ridge Forest, acting under the directions of the Supreme Court.

Parallelly, the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, initiated in 1995, became another pivotal judicial intervention for forest preservation in India. In this case, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was formed in 2002 to monitor court orders on encroachments and conservation in ecologically sensitive areas. Both cases collectively ensured that any construction or development in the Delhi Ridge required prior approval from the RMB and subsequently from the Supreme Court, via a proposal mooted through the CEC.

The Contemptuous Act:

The present controversy arose when the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought approval for the construction of approach roads connecting Chattarpur Road to SAARC University, CAPFIMS (Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences), and other establishments in the Southern Ridge region. The DDA proposed to use 3.60 hectares of the Southern Ridge and an additional 0.968 hectares of Morphological Ridge land, entailing the felling of approximately 1,051 trees. Morphological Ridge land, though outside notified boundaries, possesses similar ecological features and is accorded the same protection.

Despite the DDA's application being approved by the CEC in December 2023, the Supreme Court, on March 4, 2024, dismissed the DDA's pleas for tree felling due to vagueness and the absence of prior permission under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Court directed the DDA to revise its proposal to minimize tree felling.

However, the Petitioner discovered ongoing tree-felling activities in the Satbari area on February 23, 2024, observing significant decimation of the Ridge Forest. It was later revealed that the DDA had proceeded with clearing the Ridge reserved forest and felling trees on non-forest land without awaiting the Court's adjudication or express permission. This led to the filing of the instant contempt petition, alleging willful violation of the May 9, 1996 order.

Court's Findings and Rationale:

The Supreme Court acknowledged that DDA officials had indeed defied its orders and that contempt had been committed. The Court found that there was both a non-compliance with the May 9, 1996 order regarding prior permission for tree felling and a deliberate concealment of the fact that tree felling had already commenced on February 16, 2024, while the DDA's application was still pending. The Court categorized these actions as "gravely contumacious" and a "blatant obstruction of the administration of justice," falling under "criminal contempt" as defined by Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

However, the Court also recognized the underlying objective of the DDA's actions: to facilitate improved access to CAPFIMS and other public institutions. The Court differentiated between mala fide abuse of power and genuine administrative misjudgment, placing the present instance in the latter category. It emphasized the "larger public interest" served by institutions like CAPFIMS, which provides essential medical care to paramilitary forces personnel and their families. The Court stated that stopping or undoing the road construction at this stage would undermine public interest and waste public resources.

Directions and Remedial Measures:

While acknowledging the ecological damage, the Court aimed for a balanced resolution. It discharged the rule nisi for contempt but issued comprehensive directions for remediation:

• Ecological Restoration: The DDA, in coordination with the GNCTD, must undertake urgent and time-bound remedial measures under the supervision of the Court-appointed Committee (Shri Ishwar Singh, Shri Sunil Limaye, and Shri Pradip Krishen). This includes assessing 185 acres of land for compensatory afforestation, selecting native species, and formulating a plantation plan to maximize the ecological advantage of the monsoon season.
• Supervision and Reporting: The Forest Department will work under the Committee's supervision, with all expenditure borne by the DDA. They are responsible for maintaining detailed records of sapling health and survival rates. A jointly signed bi-annual compliance report with photographic and video documentation must be submitted to the Court, cross-checked by the Committee.
• Road Completion and Green Cover: The DDA is to ensure the expeditious completion of the approach roads. The Committee may explore implementing thick coverage of healthy trees on both sides of the roads.
• Levy on Beneficiaries: The GNCTD, in consultation with the DDA, is directed to identify affluent individuals who directly benefit from the new roads and may impose a one-time levy commensurate with the proportionate construction cost, in accordance with natural justice principles.
• Accountability of Officials: While proceedings against the First Respondent (Vice Chairman of DDA) were closed as he no longer holds his position, other DDA officials found responsible by the internal inquiry are directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 each as an environmental fee and face a formal penalty of censure. Departmental proceedings against them are to be concluded within six months.
• Future Compliance: All future notifications or orders related to afforestation, road construction, tree felling, or any activity with potential ecological impact must explicitly mention the pendency of relevant proceedings before the Supreme Court to prevent pleas of ignorance.

The Court concluded by stating that while administrative incompetence and disregard for court orders were evident, the "overwhelming public interest" served by CAPFIMS ultimately influenced its tempered approach. It warned that any future recurrence of such conduct would not be met with similar indulgence.

Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994  

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980  

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971