Avoid repeat of Delhi Ridge tree felling: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the “breach” committed by the Delhi Development of Authority (DDA) in chopping down 1,670 trees in the Ridge area in Delhi should not be allowed to happen again, and proposed to put in place a mechanism to achieve this.
Posting the matter for Friday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said, “We have found the breach in this contempt petition. More importantly, we need to see what safeguards we should put in place to obviate such breaches in future.”
The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea against the vice chairman of DDA for chopping down more than 1,100 trees in Satbari Ridge in south Delhi for a road widening project leading to CAPFIMS multi-specialty hospital for paramilitary forces and other institutions in Chhatarpur. Though DDA claimed only 642 trees were cut and the Delhi government put the number at 745, the court ordered the Forest Survey of India (FSI) to undertake a scientific study. Its report submitted early this week found 1,670 trees were cut to pave way for the road project.
Informing the bench about the FSI findings, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan along with advocate Manan Verma said, “At some point, a sharp edge of the wedge is required to ensure such instances do not go unpunished.” He said that the contempt petitions can be proceeded with as it is now clear that 1,670 trees were cut in February this year, much before DDA’s application seeking permission for the same was rejected by the court on March 18.
DDA represented by senior advocate Maninder Singh disputed FSI’s conclusions. Preventing him from doing so, the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, “We request DDA, do not quarrel on the trees cut.” Instead, the court asked the authority, “What are you doing to restore the ridge? How many trees have been planted?”
Posting the matter on Friday, which coincides with the last working day for CJI, the bench said, “If 1670 trees have been cut, what is the way forward. We will direct them to restore the 1,670 trees, ideally in the ridge, and as reparation replant 100 trees (saplings) for each tree cut. This can be in addition to the 1670 trees in some other place.”
The court also proposed a monitoring mechanism i to ensure the planted trees survive. It was told that a committee of three environmental experts was roped in by the court to suggest measures for enhancing tree cover in Delhi. The court said that these experts could be asked to monitor the replanting of trees.
Sankaranarayanan said that in a contempt petition, court was required to go into the question of who granted clearances for felling trees when the law is clear that without the court’s nod even a single tree in the ridge cannot be touched. In May, when notice was issued on the contempt petition, these questions were asked and DDA sought to put the blame on an executive engineer and two assistant engineers. Last month, the court sought an affidavit from Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena, who is the chairman of DDA, on whether he knew that court permission was needed to chop trees in the ridge and to specifically state when he came to know that the trees were felled .
The LG informed the court that he was not aware of the requirement for court permission till March 21 and that he came to know the trees were felled only in June. But the note cited in the affidavit as the basis for this, seemed to suggest that the LG knew about the felling of trees as early as April. The court directed both LG and then VC Subhashish Panda to clarify this aspect.
In his fresh affidavit filed this week, the LG admitted that while on April 12, he was verbally informed by the DDA VC that trees were felled, the fact that they were felled in February was only told to him in June. Panda, in his separate affidavit, endorsed this position.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, also appearing for DDA, informed the court that once the contempt petition is disposed, permission should be given to continue with the road project. He said that the multi-specialty hospital is awaiting inauguration and equities can be balanced by directing the authority to plant additional trees.
The bench said that in the contempt petition, no such relief can be provided. It told DDA, “We are not going to give you relief in this petition. We will put safeguards in place to obviate this kind of situation from arising in future.”