Recently, the Supreme Court examined a plea by the Delhi Development Authority seeking approval to fell hundreds of trees in the Delhi Ridge area for infrastructure development linked to a medical institute. The Court closely scrutinised the environmental compliance claimed by the authorities and expressed concern over the pace and authenticity of afforestation measures undertaken pursuant to earlier directions.
The case arises from a request by the DDA to cut 473 trees to facilitate completion of a road leading to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) in the Delhi Ridge. The plea was listed before a Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing, the Bench revisited its earlier orders concerning large-scale tree felling carried out across multiple locations in Delhi Ridge without prior approval, involving approximately 1.65 lakh trees spread over 18 identified pockets.
At the outset, the Court questioned the DDA’s request for fresh permissions in light of pending compliance with past directions. The Solicitor General, appearing for the authorities, informed the Bench that a compliance affidavit had been filed detailing steps taken towards afforestation.
Counsel for the DDA submitted that progress reports covering 18 sites over 185 acres had been placed on record and stated that preparatory works, including fencing and boundary construction, were underway. It was further submitted that additional time had been granted for completion of plantation activities, with the deadline extending until 31 March. The authorities also highlighted logistical challenges, stating that certain existing saplings would need to be relocated for the road project to proceed.
The Bench, however, remained unconvinced and repeatedly sought tangible proof of on-ground action. The Court asked specific queries regarding the actual number of saplings planted, soil quality, depth of pits, and technical parameters necessary for sustainable plantation. Emphasising the need for substantive compliance rather than paper formalities, the Chief Justice remarked that permissions would not be considered unless visible and verifiable plantation had taken place. The Court also cautioned against cosmetic compliance, observing that afforestation efforts must be real and enduring, not merely data-driven representations. An Amicus Curiae assisting the Court pointed out that plantation activities were undertaken only after the Court’s intervention, following tree cutting allegedly carried out without prior approval.
While refraining from granting any immediate permission, the Bench directed that a comprehensive compliance report detailing all steps taken so far be circulated to all parties. The matter has been directed to be listed again on 19 January, with the Court making it clear that no further permissions would be considered unless genuine, on-ground afforestation is demonstrated.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
