Supreme Court Bench Pauses Contempt Case Over DDA Tree Felling Noting That Another Bench Has Taken Up Same Issue Later

A bench led by Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 24) halted the contempt proceedings initiated by it against the Delhi Development Authority Vice Chairman over illegal tree felling after noting that another bench led by Justice AS Oka took up the same contempt case later.

Justice Gavai pointed out that it was his bench which had initiated the contempt proceedings against the DDA first on April 24. Therefore, he added, Justice Oka-led bench ought to have sought clarifications from the Chief Justice of India before initiating contempt proceedings against the DDA on the same cause of action later on May 14.

It may be noted that Justice Gavai's bench is dealing with the TN Godavarman case, in which the Supreme Court has been issuing various directions in relation to forests across the country since 1995. Justice Oka's bench is dealing with the MC Mehta case, which specifically relates to the environmental issues pertaining to Delhi-NCR.

"The other bench has not adhered to judicial propriety, but we are...the appropriate course for any bench would have been to refer the matter to the CJI...ultimately, it is the Chief Justice who is the Master of the Roster", commented Justice Gavai.

Justice Gavai's bench then passed an order pausing the proceedings in the contempt matter initiated by it on April 24. It referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for clarification.

This bench, presided by Justices Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan, recorded in the order as follows :

"A situation has arisen wherein on the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings are pending - one on the basis of the notice issued by the bench presided by one of us, Gavai J, and the other on the basis of order passed by Supreme Court judge, Oka J. The learned Amicus informs that the contempt proceedings initiated by the bench presided by Oka J have substantially travelled [...] and various orders are passed by the said Bench. In that view of the matter, in order to avoid conflicting orders, we find it appropriate that the contempt proceedings initiated by the bench presided by one of us vide order dated 24 April, 2024 are kept in abeyance".

"The contempt proceedings with regard to the felling of trees was first initiated by the bench presided by one of us (Gavai J) vide order dated 24 April 2024. It would have been more appropriate for the other bench to seek clarification from the Hon'ble CJI before initiating contempt proceedings for the same cause of action as to which bench should continue with the said proceedings...", it added.

For more context, a Division Bench led by Justice Oka has been hearing a suo motu contempt case against DDA Vice Chairman-Subhasish Panda for violation of orders passed in the MC Mehta batch of cases. Lately, it suspected that the DDA was doing a cover-up to protect Delhi LG VK Saxena.

Today, another contempt case relating to tree-felling in the Delhi Ridge area was listed before the three-judge bench led by Justice Gavai. This related to DDA seeking the court's permission to cut some trees, to widen the road leading to Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) - a hospital planned for paramilitary forces.

Initially, Amicus Curiae K Parmeswar took to submissions and recapitulated that the Central Empowered Committee had given two reports - No. 4 and No. 5. Report No.4 was with respect to a project where trees were cut in violation of two Supreme Court orders - one passed in TN Godavarman (being dealt by Justice Gavai-led Bench) and another passed in MC Mehta (being dealt by Justice Oka-led Bench).

He referred to the order passed in 2023 in TN Godavarman, which stated that until the exercise of identifying the Ridge area (as well as areas having similar morphological features to it) was completed by the court-appointed committee, no tree-felling shall take place without leave of the court. It was informed that in violation of the order, DDA allotted land and permitted felling of trees, for which contempt notice was issued to it on 24 April, 2024.

The Amicus added that in parallel proceedings (ie MC Mehta), DDA moved applications seeking permission to fell trees for the road-widening project, but the same were declined in March, 2024. It was highlighted that the applicants did not disclose in these proceedings the order passed in TN Godavarman, which restricted DDA from felling trees until report of the Committee came. As such, on May 14, 2024, contempt proceedings were initiated by a Justice Oka-led bench (in MC Mehta).

On behalf of DDA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh pled that CAPFIMS is ready but cannot be made operational without a 24m wide road. Countering his submission, Justice Gavai said, "Ambulances also travel to villages". However, Singh explained that the volume of traffic near CAPFIMS, a 800-bedded super-specialty hospital, necessitates a 24m wide road. It was claimed that in view of the contempt plea, CAPFIMS is getting lost.

Singh also urged that he expected the application seeking permission to fell trees (for the road-widening project) to be listed under TN Godavarman. But Justice Gavai was quick to point out, "you moved the court in MC Mehta". Conceding, Singh said, "I know, my Lord. That was a mistake that we did". In response, Justice Gavai remarked, "then you have to suffer for your (actions)...".

When it was prayed that the contempt case may be allowed to continue in MC Mehta, while TN Godavarman deals with the "national interest" project that is CAPFIMS, Justice Gavai observed that the bench would not like conflicting orders.

It is worthwhile to mention that Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan (who appeared for the petitioner in the contempt case before J Oka) also addressed the court on behalf of contempt-petitioners. He submitted that the same action was contempt of two separate proceedings (TN Godavarman and MC Mehta): "There is an order in Godavarman, there is a separate order in MC Mehta. For the violation of Godavarman, one contempt petition is filed. For the violation of MC Mehta, separate contempt petition is filed".

Hearing him, the bench responded that it was only keeping the proceedings pending before it in abeyance. "We don't want to say anything...it's a question of propriety...when another bench is already seized of a matter, whether the subsequent bench could have looked into it...other bench has not adhered to judicial propriety...we are doing so", said Justice Gavai.

Clarifying that no order was being passed on merits, the bench placed the matter before the CJI to seek instructions.

Case Title: IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 202/1995