The Supreme Court, led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, recently addressed key issues including the census timeline, CAMPA fund utilization, forest cover requirements, and unauthorized constructions in The Taj Trapezium Zone
NEW DELHI: In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court addressed multiple issues, including the timeline for the census action plan, efficient utilization of CAMPA funds, forest cover requirements, and unauthorized constructions in the Taj Trapezium Zone. Justice Abhay S. Oka presided over the discussions, emphasizing the need for expedited timelines and effective implementation of policies.
Concerns Over Timeline for Phase 3 of the Census Action Plan
The Court expressed concerns over the 24-month timeline set for Phase 3 of the action plan, deeming it excessive and unnecessary. The Bench directed that the first installment for the census should not be delayed, stressing the importance of timely data collection and implementation.
Additionally, the Court mandated that Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) funds be utilized efficiently to ensure that conservation efforts are effectively carried out.
During the proceedings, counsel representing one of the parties argued that even a 12-month timeframe for the action plan was excessive. Justice Oka concurred with this concern, stating that the timeframe should be further reduced to facilitate quicker execution and tangible results.
Forest Cover vs. Green Cover Debate
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati submitted that
” the working plan for afforestation and environmental management had been under preparation since 2016″
She emphasized
“the necessity of integrating the existing plan to avoid redundant expenses and duplication of work”
The discussion also touched upon the definition of forest cover. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the national goal is to maintain a 33% forest cover, as opposed to merely increasing green cover.
The Delhi Government asserted that it had expanded green cover, but concerns were raised that this increase might not necessarily translate into actual forest expansion.
Recognizing the need for precision in environmental policies, Justice Oka underscored that FRI (Forest Research Institute) must incorporate relevant provisions from the existing action plan to prevent duplication. The Court set a deadline of June 2025 for the submission of comprehensive affidavits outlining the measures taken.
Addressing Unauthorized Constructions in Delhi
The discussion then shifted to illegal constructions and the enforcement of demolition orders. Counsel for the petitioners highlighted that
“although demolition orders had been issued, several unauthorized structures remained intact”
They argued that
“legal provisions were being misused to shield illegal constructions, thereby defeating the purpose of urban planning and regulation.”
Justice Oka inquired about the
“legal representation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and sought clarification regarding the enforcement of demolition orders”
The Shanmukha Welfare Association intervened, arguing that some of these structures were protected under the ordinance. Justice Oka, however, emphasized the need for greater clarity on which specific structures were covered under the relevant legal framework.
Supreme Court’s Directives to MCD and Delhi Government
To ensure accountability and transparency, the Supreme Court issued the following key directives:
- MCD to file an affidavit detailing the number of unsealed structures that fall under the NCT Special Provisions Second Amendment Act.
- Delhi Government to submit an affidavit outlining the actions taken regarding properties not protected under the Act.
- MCD to provide a copy of the PM Uday Scheme as referenced in their affidavit.
- Deadline for submission: Two weeks from the date of the order.
The Court’s intervention highlights the urgent need for regulatory compliance in urban planning and environmental conservation. The matter will be reviewed further upon submission of the required affidavits.
Cause Title : MC Mehta v UOI
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE