Today, On 24th October, The CJI DY Chandrachud challenged Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena’s assertion regarding the tree-cutting controversy, demanding the original records related to the matter. Saxena previously stated that he was unaware that court approval was necessary until March, despite the tree felling commencing in February. This inquiry highlights concerns over procedural adherence and accountability in environmental governance.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, questioned Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena’s assertion that he was informed about the unauthorized tree cutting in the ridge area only in June.
The tree cutting occurred in February, and LG Saxena stated in an affidavit that he learned of these actions only in June.
However, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, after reviewing the records, revealed that Subhashish Panda, the then Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority, had informed Saxena about the tree cutting as early as April.
The court noted,
“The extract from the affidavit shows that the chairperson was made aware of the fact that actual felling took place before February 16, 2024, in April.”
The Court remarked that the claim that Saxena was only informed on June 10 about the actual tree felling occurring in February appeared to be inaccurate.
The Court ordered,
“Thus we call for an additional affidavit from the vice chairperson of DDA on the above discrepancy. We also direct that all original records be produced before this court. List on Tuesday…let the affidavit state the specific date when they came to know about the felling of trees,”
This ruling came during a hearing regarding the illegal felling of hundreds of trees in Delhi’s ridge area.
The Bench recently requested the Lieutenant Governor (LG) to clarify how the trees were cut, despite previous court orders prohibiting such actions in the area without the Supreme Court’s authorization.
In an affidavit submitted on October 22, LG Saxena stated that he was unaware of the need for prior permission and claimed that his actions were taken in the interest of the public.
The LG further highlighted that the tree removal was part of a significant project that has already received an investment of Rs.2,200 crores in public funds.
Additionally, he corrected the earlier report stating that approximately 642 trees were actually cut down, rather than the 1,100 trees previously mentioned to the Court.
Importantly, the LG requested that Subhasish Panda, the Vice-Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), be released from the contempt proceedings initiated against him.
While emphasizing the contempt of court in this case, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, stated that a formal notice would need to be issued.
He argued,
“Instructions for felling were given by Manoj Kumar Jain and two other engineers, both assistant engineers. The above officers allowed tree cutting to take place on their own accord, and thus they have now found scapegoats,”
Sankaranarayanan further noted that the DDA and similar authorities have been applying for such permissions since 1995, so they cannot claim ignorance at this point. He also indicated that although tree cutting officially began on February 15, the petitioners have reason to believe it started earlier.
In his affidavit, LG Saxena claimed he was unaware of the tree cutting until June. CJI Chandrachud questioned how the petitioners could prove that the Delhi LG was aware of the felling when he visited the site in February.
Sankaranarayanan replied,
“When the matter came to the Supreme Court and the DDA pressed its application and then withdrew it without disclosing that such a violation took place.”
The senior counsel also referenced news reports from May that covered the case extensively. After reviewing the records, the Court found that the DDA Vice Chairman informed the LG about the tree cutting in April, questioning how it could now be claimed that the LG was only made aware in June.
CJI Chandrachud remarked,
“If you see the June 10 letter from the vice chairman to the LG, he states that the LG is apprised of the blunder that tree felling has taken place… in April. And now the LG claims he only learned about it in June. So do not blame the vice chairman,”
However, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing the DDA, argued that the situation was not as straightforward as presented. Nevertheless, Singh acknowledged that there was indeed a clear case of contempt of court.
He Stated,
“It is a clear case of contempt, and it needs to be determined who is responsible. The question is whether this court will hold someone accountable for contempt or take remedial measures. The trees are gone now,”
The contempt plea filed by a Delhi resident, Bindu Kapurea, alleging that approximately 1,100 trees were felled in the Ridge area without the necessary permission from the Supreme Court, as mandated under the MC Mehta case of May 1996, which protects the Ridge from encroachments. The large-scale tree removal was conducted to facilitate the construction of a 10km road from Chattarpur to SAARC University and other facilities in the Maidan Garhi and Satbari areas.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
