A bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in a judgment pronounced on Tuesday, noted that the DDA had violated the Court’s 1996 judgment that mandates prior permission from the top court before cutting trees in ecologically sensitive Ridge areas.
SC directs ECI to publish 'logical discrepancy' lists in Tamil Nadu. (File Photo: IANS)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the unauthorised/illegal felling of trees in Delhi’s ecologically sensitive Southern Ridge, terming the act “contemptuous” but refrained from penalising former DDA Vice-Chairman Subhashish Panda, citing a “genuine administrative misjudgment” arising out of the road widening project for improved access to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS).
A bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in a judgment pronounced on Tuesday, noted that the DDA had violated the Court’s 1996 judgment that mandates prior permission from the top court before cutting trees in ecologically sensitive Ridge areas.
Advertisement
Speaking for the bench, Justice Surya Kant said, “We must state that the instant matter is yet another classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach. The facts before us reveal a troubling pattern: permissions not obtained, court orders ignored, and environmental degradation inflicted with impunity. Such actions certainly raise fundamental concerns about governance and accountability.”
Advertisement
Justice Kant further said, “… it must be unequivocally stated that any recurrence of such conduct will not be met with similar indulgence. It is only the overwhelming public interest served by the establishment of CAPFIMS that has, in effect, overshadowed the sheer administrative incompetence and blatant disregard for both established procedures and the orders of this Court. It is the good fortune of the concerned DDA officials that this larger objective has weighed in their favour, without which this Court may have been compelled to adopt a far more stringent approach and deal with an iron fist.”
Having warned against any recurrence of such destruction of forest and ecology, the court closed the contempt proceedings against Subhashish Panda, former Vice Chairman of DDA, who has since demitted office.
“Since the First Respondent (now ex-DDA Vice-Chairman Subhashish Panda) was not an officer in the DDA cadre and is no longer holding any position in that organisation, we deem it appropriate to close the proceedings qua him,” the Court said.
However, for other concerned DDA officials, the court ordered, “…, all other Respondents and officials of DDA found responsible by the internal inquiry for the acts leading to the present contempt are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25000 each as an environmental fee with the Forest Department, in addition to and without any prejudice to the departmental action that may be taken against them.”
Making a distinction between “mala fide abuse of power and genuine administrative misjudgement” the court said that it was inclined to deem that “the present instance falls within the latter category”.
Having termed it as a “genuine administrative misjudgement”, the court issued a string of remedial and preventive directions, including constitution of a three-member committee to design and oversee an afforestation plan, directions to the DDA and Delhi government to implement the afforestation measures suggested by the committee.
“The DDA, in conjunction with the GNCTD and the Forest Department, are further directed to implement in full earnest the comprehensive measures recommended by the Court-appointed Committee in its final report, aimed at enhancing and restoring the green cover within the National Capital Territory of Delhi”, the top court said in its slew of directions.
The Court also directed that these measures “shall be treated as binding and implemented under the supervision of the Committee, with periodic progress reports filed before this Court.”
The Court further ordered the completion of road development to the hospital and asked the DDA to explore options for dense tree cover on both sides of the road.
In a mandate to prevent any future administrative mis-judgment, the top court directed, “Every notification or order relating to afforestation, road construction, tree felling, or any activity with potential ecological impact must explicitly mention the pendency of relevant proceedings before this Court. This direction is being issued to ensure that, in future, the plea of ignorance is not taken as a defence.”
In a strongly-worded epilogue, the Court remarked: “The instant matter is yet another classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach. The facts before us reveal a troubling pattern: permissions not obtained, court orders ignored, and environmental degradation inflicted with impunity. Such actions certainly raise fundamental concerns about governance and accountability.”
Hoping that the proceedings, in the instant case, lead to meaningful course correction, the court said, “We truly hope that these proceedings have been conducive to incorporating necessary course corrections by the DDA and other bodies so as to avoid any such lapses in the future.”
Making it clear that the view taken by it in the case was an exception, the court said, “… it must be unequivocally stated that any recurrence of such conduct will not be met with similar indulgence.”
Advertisement
