Supreme Court Shocked At DDA Appointing Judicial Officers As Its Legal Advisors, Says It Violates Judicial Independence

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 24) expressed shock at the practice of Delhi Development Authority(DDA) appointing in-service Judicial Officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service as its legal advisors.

Observing that such a practice violated judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court asked the DDA to discontinue it. The Court also urged the Delhi High Court to look into the matter for appropriate action.

A vacation bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo motu contempt case initiated against DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda for the felling of trees in Delhi Ridge Forest violating Supreme Court's orders.

While perusing the affidavit of the DDA Vice Chairman, the bench noticed this "shocking practice" followed by the DDA to appoint in-service judicial officers as legal advisors.

The bench observed in the order as follows :

"While we were perusing the affidavit, we came across something which is shocking.  Prima facie we are of view that appointing serving judicial officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services as legal advisors of the DDA completely violates the principles of independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. Apart from this, the DDA is a major litigant in Courts in Delhi. We expect the Delhi HC to take appropriate action on this aspect.

We therefore direct that a copy of the order be forwarded by the Registry to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, who shall forthwith place the same before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.  We hope and trust DDA on its own will immediately discontinue this practice of appointing serving judicial officers as legal advisors of DDA. The reason is simple. In-service judicial officers cannot be appointed as legal advisors of a major litigant before the courts in Delhi."

What transpired during the hearing?

During the hearing Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing on behalf of DDA Vice Chairman, addressed the question from the bench as to whether the Legal Department of the DDA was aware of the Supreme Court orders passed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. 

The involvement of Judicial Officers in the Legal Department came to light when Mr Singh submitted that DDA had requested a few Judicial Officers to help oversee the working of the legal team

"Judicial Officers are there to help DDA in doing their legal work and to advise them. They(DDA) request them (Judicial Officers) that please see the working of the advocates ..."

Justice Oka was quick to interject and remark on the absurdity of Judicial Officers being involved in the legal affairs of Statutory bodies.

"How could serving judicial officers work with DDA? We fail to understand....we seek your assistance on this. DDA is a statutory authority. Tomorrow you will say that Judicial Officers should work with Municipal Corporation....It's a shocking state- DDA is a litigant before this Court and Judicial Officers are helping it. What is this going on?" 

The Bench further asked Mr Singh to refrain from encouraging such an argument. 

"Mr Singh, are you defending this? Judicial Officers working with DDA as legal advisors? Please stop this practice immediately " 

The Court was also informed that there were two higher judicial officers who were working as legal advisors and Chief legal advisors of the DDA. 

To which, Justice Oka replied that having judicial members as advisors in the executive's statutory body was against the concept of judicial independence.

"How? There is something known as the independence of the judiciary. Have you forgotten the basic concept?" 

Singh agreed that such a practice of having judicial officers as legal advisors should be avoided by the DDA. 

"They are one of the major litigants in the Delhi Courts, it would be totally unadvisable that the judicial officers become their legal advisors. "  

The DDA's main defence was that the Executive Engineer failed to communicate about the felling of the trees to the Chief Legal Advisor. The Legal Department was thus not aware of the felling instructions.

During the hearing, the Court noted that the e-mail correspondences indicated the involvement of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor in ordering the clearing of the trees.

The Court subsequently passed a detailed order asking the Vice Chairman to disclose clear facts on the involvement of the Lieutenant Governor of DelhiThe bench noted that certain email communications referred to a site visit made by the LG on February 3, 2024, and that the felling of trees was done upon the directions of the LG post the site visit.  The detailed report can be found here. 

Case Detailed : Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order