The Supreme Court questioned DDA’s request to fell 473 trees for a road project, seeking strict proof of compliance with earlier plantation orders. CJI Surya Kant stressed that no permission will be granted without real, on-ground afforestation, not “AI-generated forests.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday heard a plea filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking permission to cut 473 trees in the Delhi Ridge area for completing a road leading to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS).
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing, the court raised serious concerns over environmental compliance and past tree felling carried out in the region.
At the outset, Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the DDA’s request and the history of tree cutting in the area, saying,
“You’re seeking permission to cut another 473 trees how many were cut earlier? We won’t permit anything unless we are satisfied about compliance. What about compliance concerning the earlier felling of 1.65 lakh trees across 18 pockets?”
Responding to the court, the Solicitor General informed the Bench,
“A compliance affidavit has been filed.”
The Chief Justice, however, sought concrete proof of action on the ground and directed the authorities,
“Please place photographs showing the progress.”
Counsel appearing for the DDA submitted details of the steps taken so far and stated,
“Progress after six months has been placed on record covering 18 sites over 185 acres.”
The court then specifically asked about the actual plantation work, observing,
“Out of the 185 acres identified, how many saplings have actually been planted?”
In response, counsel said more time had been granted for completing the work and added,
“Time has been granted till March 31, boundary work is underway.”
The Chief Justice further questioned the quality of plantation and technical aspects involved, remarking,
“If you are planting larger trees, deeper pits are required. What type of soil is being used?”
To this, counsel replied that preparatory steps were ongoing, stating,
“Tenders have been issued; boundary walls by DDA are almost complete.”
Seeking more time to respond comprehensively, the Solicitor General requested,
“Please list the matter on Friday, I’ll seek instructions.”
The Bench stressed the need for transparency and detailed disclosure, with the Chief Justice stating,
“We need a comprehensive report detailing steps taken so far.”
During the course of arguments, the Solicitor General clarified the status of the medical institute project and said,
“Only the OPD has started; other hospital activities have not commenced.”
Expressing dissatisfaction over the pace of plantation, the Chief Justice cautioned the authorities,
“Unless actual plantation is carried out in these pockets”
— indicating that permissions would not be considered without visible compliance.
The Solicitor General also pointed out a practical difficulty linked to the road construction and informed the court,
“The existing saplings will have to be relocated, otherwise, the road construction cannot proceed.”
At this stage, Advocate Gopal S, appearing as Amicus Curiae, explained the background to the plantation issue and submitted that the saplings were planted only after the Supreme Court’s earlier directions, following tree cutting by the DDA without prior permission.
Reacting sharply to the manner of compliance, the Chief Justice made a strong remark, saying,
“We don’t want these 18 pockets to turn into AI generated forests.”
Concluding the hearing, the Bench directed that the matter be taken up again and ordered,
“List the matter on 19 January. The compliance report filed pursuant to earlier directions shall be circulated to all parties.”
The hearing highlights the Supreme Court’s continued focus on strict environmental compliance, especially in cases involving large-scale tree felling, and its insistence that development projects must proceed only after genuine and verifiable afforestation measures are implemented on the ground.
Case Title:
Bindu Kapurea v Subhasish Panda and Others,
MA 1652/2025
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Delhi Ridge
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
