Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with contempt proceedings against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in two significant matters related to the felling of trees in Delhi’s Ridge Forest area. The Court while hearing the contempt cases arising from violations of the TN Godavarman case and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, emphasised the need for appropriate remedial measures and afforestation efforts to mitigate the damage caused. The Court sought clarifications on the irreversible harm caused by tree felling for road widening purposes to accommodate the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Science (CAPFIMS).
The contempt proceedings were initiated concerning the felling of 1,670 trees in the Ridge Forest area to widen the road for the CAPFIMS project. The tree felling violated the Supreme Court’s rulings in the TN Godavarman and M.C. Mehta cases. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, representing the petitioner in one of the contempt cases, provided a brief background of the proceedings, explaining the cutting of the trees and highlighting the contemptuous actions by the DDA. Justice Bhuyan sought clarification on whether there was any issue with continuing the matter before the current bench due to his involvement in an earlier bench handling the contempt proceedings.
Sankarnarayan explained that the DDA had repeatedly changed its stance and counsel across different courts. He emphasized that an undertaking had been filed by the DDA in compliance with previous orders, pledging to restore the affected area to its original condition, replant the trees that had been felled, and plant additional trees where feasible. The Senior Advocate raised concerns about the DDA’s inconsistent approach and the lack of clear action on afforestation in the Ridge area.
In response to Justice Kant's inquiry about the possibility of alternative areas for afforestation, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the DDA, submitted a report detailing potential sites for afforestation purposes. Singh also addressed the issue of whether any irreversible damage had been caused by the road widening, specifically regarding the construction of CAPFIMS. The Court asked both parties to assist in providing information on the extent of the damage caused.
Justice Kant, while hearing the matter, pointed out that any damage caused by the felling of trees should be compensated for by afforestation efforts. He stated that the objective should be to restore the ecological balance, focusing on replanting and ensuring that the damage does not remain irreversible. He sought clarity on whether the road widening would cause any permanent damage and questioned why such drastic steps were necessary. Justice Kant further instructed that the parties file a list of individuals who would benefit from the road widening to assess the true necessity of the action. The Court also raised concerns about the possibility of alternative afforestation sites and asked the DDA to provide more details on this matter. The bench directed both parties to produce photographs of the afforestation efforts and a site plan of the affected area by the next hearing date, January 7, 2025.
The Supreme Court refrained from making any immediate rulings but made it clear that the damage caused by the felling of trees should be counterbalanced by significant afforestation. It emphasised that any irreversible damage due to the road widening should be thoroughly assessed. The Court directed both parties to assist in providing evidence of afforestation and the potential for mitigation of the damage caused. A further hearing is scheduled for January 7, 2025, when the Court expects to receive updated reports, photographs, and site plans from both parties to evaluate the steps taken for environmental restoration.
~Siddharth Raghuvanshi
Picture Source :
