Today, On 24th September, The Supreme Court granted exemption to an environment ministry official and contractors from appearing in person in a case concerning the felling of trees. The case, which involves environmental concerns, initially required their presence, but the court has now relieved them from that obligation. However, the legal proceedings and scrutiny over the matter will continue, emphasizing the significance of addressing environmental violations while ensuring procedural fairness for the parties involved.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday exempted the personal appearance of the principal secretary of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, along with private contractors, in a case concerning the large-scale felling of trees in Delhi’s Ridge area.
A bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, scheduled to hear a contempt case against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and others regarding tree cutting in the southern Ridge’s Satbari area, was informed that the officials and contractors were present in court as per an earlier directive.
Senior advocate Anupam Lad Das, representing the contractors, informed the court that they had submitted responses to the show-cause notices and requested an exemption from personal appearance on Wednesday. Similarly, the counsel for the ministry requested that the principal secretary be excused from appearing in person.
The Chief Justice granted the requests for exemption at this stage, with the case likely to be heard further on Wednesday.
The contempt proceedings against DDA Vice-Chairman Subhasish Panda and others, concerning the alleged deforestation in the Ridge, are now set to be heard by a bench led by the Chief Justice. Previously, the case heard by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Justice Oka’s bench had earlier issued a criminal contempt notice to Panda, criticizing him for permitting large-scale tree felling in the southern Ridge’s Satbari area to facilitate road construction between Chattarpur and the South Asian University. The court expressed dissatisfaction over a misleading affidavit filed by Panda, accusing him of providing incorrect information to the court.
On July 24, another bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, P.K. Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan noted the existence of two separate contempt cases regarding tree felling in Delhi’s Ridge area. The bench stressed the importance of “judicial propriety” and sought to avoid any conflicting orders.
It suggested that cases related to the Ridge should be handled by a single bench to ensure consistency in judgments and avoid contradictions, questioning whether a subsequent bench should have taken up the matter when another was already dealing with it.
On March 4, the Supreme Court denied the DDA’s request to fell 1,051 trees, calling the application “very vague.”
As an instrumentality of the state, the court emphasized that the DDA has a duty to prioritize environmental protection, stating,
“They must apply their mind to explore alternatives to save the trees. Furthermore, they are seeking to construct a road through a forest without obtaining permission under the Forest Act.”
The court directed the DDA to re-evaluate the proposal by consulting experts, adding,
“This exercise is essential to ensure that public works are carried out with the minimum number of trees being felled.”