What Irreversible Harm If Road Widened For Medical Institute? Supreme Court Asks In Delhi Ridge Tree Felling Matter

The Supreme Court yesterday (December 10) heard contempt cases against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in the Delhi Ridge Forest area matter, which pertains to the felling of trees in the forest area in violation of the TN Godavarman case (matter 1) and the rampant felling of trees in Delhi's Ridge Forest area in violation of the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors (matter 2).

While hearing both matters, the Court stated it was going to attempt to restore the damage caused. The Court asked what was the irreversible harm caused by felling the trees to widen the road to a medical institute (CAPFIMS).

Both matters came up before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan. At the outset, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan (who appeared for the petitioner in one of the contempt cases) gave a brief background of the two proceedings. He said: "The background is, there was a chopping of 1670 trees and the contempt is in both matters, MC Mehta's which is dealing with Ridge issues and in TN Godavarman, which is the trees matter."

Before he could continue, Justice Bhuyan sought a clarification on whether there was any issue in continuing the matter before the present bench since he was a part of Justice Oka's bench(which initiated the contempt proceedings in MC Mehta case). After the Court was informed that there did not seem to be any issue, Sankaranarayan continued with his background.

Justice Kant at the outset stated that whoever has caused the damage, the motive should now be re-compensation in terms of afforestation. Sankaranarayan responded that this had already been done in the orders passed. He added that as far as DDA is concerned, they keep changing their stance, including counsels in different courts. He said: "In one Court, different lawyer appeared for DDA. This is what they stated on affidavit..It is stated that in compliance with the order dated 14 May, I humbly submit an undertaking that the following remedial action will be taken..DDA shall restore the stretch of land where the felling of trees has been done to its original condition. The trees which have been cut down shall be replaced with fresh plantation and where feasible, additional trees shall also be planted."

Justice Kant re-inquired if there is an alternative space for afforestation in and around the Ridge area. He asked why cannot the Enquiry Committee of the DDA can determine this issue. On this, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (for DDA) stated that he has filed a report on which areas could be used for afforestation purposes. 

On road widening, if any irreversible damage has been caused, the Court asked the parties to particularly assist the Court on the same. "What irreversible harm will be there if the medical institute is provided and the road is widened?" Justice Kant asked. The trees were cut purportedly to widen the road for the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS).

On this, Sankaranarayan said: "They already have the road. They want to widen it into the Ridge and the forest to save some farm of some rich people on the opposite side."

The Court responded that a list of people who will get access once the road is widened should be also filed.

On the next date(January 7, 2025), the Court has directed that the photos of the afforestation, and site plan of the area should be produced by both parties.

One contempt case arose from Justice Oka's bench (MC Mehta case) and the another from Justice Gavai's bench (TN Godavaramna case). In view of the parallel proceedings, the matter was referred to the CJI. Former CJI DY Chandrachud's bench had called for a personal affidavit of the Delhi LG (Chairman of the DDA) in the matter. Earlier, Justice Oka's bench had prima facie observed that there were correspondences indicating that the trees were cut on the instructions of the Delhi LG. The LG filed an affidavit denying that he gave any such instructions and stated that he was not informed about the need for Court's permission to fell the trees. The mattter reached the present bench after the recusal of CJI Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Details: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 [matter 1] and BINDU KAPUREA v. SUBHASISH PANDA.,Diary No. 21171-2024  & IN RE SUBHASISH PANDA VICE CHAIRMAN DDA AND ORS., SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024 [matter 2]

Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan (petitioner in matter 2), Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (DDA) and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani(for the Delhi LG)