The Supreme Court has reassigned the contempt case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) over tree felling to a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, previously overseen by Justice Abhay S. Oka. The case will be heard on August 29 by the Chief Justice along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The ongoing contempt case in the Supreme Court against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) over the felling of trees has been reassigned and will now be heard by a bench led by the Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud. This decision comes after the case, originally under the jurisdiction of a bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka, was redirected due to concerns about judicial propriety.
The case is scheduled to be heard tomorrow (on August 29) by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
On July 25, a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice BR Gavai expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the DDA tree-felling case was being heard by another bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka. Justice Gavai emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial propriety, noting that the other bench had not followed this principle.
He remarked-
“We are upholding judicial propriety, unlike the previous bench. In a contempt matter with the same cause of action, the issue should have ideally been referred to the Chief Justice.”
The case in question involves a Suo motu contempt case against Subhasish Panda, the Vice-Chairman of the DDA, which has been under the purview of a Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. The DDA came under scrutiny for cutting down over a hundred trees in the Delhi Ridge Forest, an action that violated existing court orders. Justice Oka’s bench had recently attracted attention for its sharp criticism of attempts to obscure the involvement of the Delhi Lieutenant Governor (LG) in the tree-cutting incident. The bench had also demanded an explanation from the DDA, questioning whether the trees were felled on the LG’s orders or if the decision was made independently.
However, the three-judge bench led by Justice Gavai raised concerns about the propriety of the Division Bench’s actions.
ALSO READ: Unauthorized Felling of 1,000 Trees | SC Issues Contempt Notice to DDA Vice-Chairman
Justice Gavai remarked-
“It would have been more appropriate for the previous bench to seek clarification from the Honourable CJI before proceeding with contempt for the same cause of action, as noted earlier.”
This observation arose during the hearing of an application by the DDA seeking permission to cut down trees to widen a road leading to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences in Delhi, a specialized hospital intended for paramilitary forces. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners who filed the contempt petitions, defended the Division Bench’s actions, stating that they were justified given that there were separate applications involved.
However, Justice Gavai responded-
“I have been hearing this case for two years. We do not understand the reluctance to present it to the CJI. We are not making any decisions on the merits or recording arguments; that is not our role.”
Sankaranarayanan further challenged the DDA’s intentions, noting that a road to the hospital already exists and questioning the necessity of the tree-cutting project.
He argued-
“It does not matter to me which bench hears the case; I am only concerned with the orders. The DDA claimed they would withdraw the project, yet trees are being cut down everywhere despite the severe air pollution in this city. Any bench would take action.”
In response, Justice Gavai assured-
“You are not the only one concerned about nature; I have also issued pro-ecology orders in places like Pench National Park. We only seek judicial propriety and are not overly sensitive about any particular matter.”
The court ultimately ordered-
“Given the various proceedings pending before the two benches, it is crucial to avoid conflicting orders. Therefore, it is appropriate for all matters related to the Ridge area to be heard by the same bench. To prevent further inconsistencies, we direct the Registrar to obtain necessary instructions and clarifications for cases concerning Delhi Ridge.”
