New Delhi: The controversy surrounding tree felling in Delhi’s Ridge area was back in the spotlight Wednesday after the Supreme Court cause list showed that a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud was expected to hear the case soon.
This was one of the two cases related to the illegal tree felling complaint in the Ridge area. It was earlier listed before a bench led by Justice Abhay Oka, which had issued contempt notices against the chairman of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in May for violating its previous order prohibiting the land-owning agency from cutting any trees for a road-widening project in the area. In March this year, Justice Oka had asked the DDA to review its proposal to minimise tree felling.
However, before Justice Oka hauled up DDA for the alleged contempt, another bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai in April had issued a contempt notice to the agency for the felling of trees in the same area. This was done after a Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC) submitted its report before Justice Gavai’s bench, claiming that the DDA had violated its February 2023 order banning allotment of land in the area for non-forestry purposes.
Due to parallel proceedings arising from the same cause of action, Justice Gavai’s bench had kept the contempt proceedings it initiated against DDA in abeyance. Though this bench had verbally expressed reservations over Justice Oka’s court causing duplication of hearing, it did not make any observations of this nature in the written order.
Rather, the formal order uploaded on the website had noted: “As such, a situation has arisen wherein for the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings are pending… We are of the considered view that, in order to avoid the possibility of conflicting orders being passed by two different benches, it will be appropriate that all the matters pertaining to the Delhi Ridge Area are heard by one bench.”
Justice Gavai’s bench then asked the registrar (judicial) to place the matter before the CJI for appropriate order.
Notably, the cause list of CJI’s court did not mention anything about the matter in which Justice Gavai pointed out about similar proceedings related to the Ridge area.
ThePrint explains the controversy and how the parallel proceedings started:
1 issue, 2 proceedings
In February 2023, a bench led by Justice Gavai had passed an order that disallowed DDA to allot land for non-forestry activity. This order was to be in operation until further directions. It came pursuant to an application moved by DDA in which it sought permission for allotment of land in the Ridge area.
Due to a 2011 order of the Delhi High Court, the ridge areas in Delhi are earmarked as forests, and since Justice Gavai’s bench also hears forest-related cases, DDA’s application on land allotment was heard by it in a case titled T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (forest matters).
Despite the restraint order, DDA allotted land in December 2023 for widening of the road in the Ridge area, and two months later, moved an application before the top court, requesting for permission to fell more than 400 trees.
However, instead of filing an application before Justice Gavai’s bench, the DDA moved Justice Oka’s bench that deals with unauthorised constructions, including encroachments, sealing, demolitions, and urban planning in Delhi, in the M.C. Mehta case.
Justice Oka’s bench heard the matter on 4 March this year and asked DDA to review its proposal to widen the road. DDA was told to conduct a re-survey of the area and come back with a fresh proposal so that a minimum number of trees are cut for the project. A lawyer associated with the case told ThePrint that even before DDA moved this application, it had already cut trees in the Ridge area, which was never disclosed to the court.
Meanwhile, top court-appointed CEC, a panel that has been assisting the Supreme Court in forest-related cases, submitted a report to Justice Gavai’s court on the unauthorised felling of trees in the Ridge area. CEC prepared this report on the basis of a complaint it had received from a local resident of that area.
Taking note of this report, Justice Gavai’s bench on 24 April issued a contempt notice against the vice-chairman of DDA.
Soon thereafter, a contempt petition was filed by an NGO as well as an individual before Justice Oka’s bench, informing it about the illegal felling of trees.
While the matter in Justice Gavai’s bench remained pending for hearing, Justice Oka’s bench proceeded expeditiously and held several hearings. In that process, it pulled up the DDA and Delhi government, and sought an explanation from them for violating its earlier orders.
“Justice Oka continued to hear the matter, even though he was once told about Justice Gavai’s intervention in the case in April, which was much before the contempt petition was filed before him. Yet, he continued to hold regular hearings at short intervals,” a lawyer appearing in the case told ThePrint.
Finally, on 24 July, Justice Gavai referred the issue to the CJI to resolve it, prompting the latter to step in to prevent parallel proceedings arising out of a common issue.
This is, however, not the first time that the CJI has intervened to avoid duplication of proceedings. Earlier this year, on the request of Justice Gavai, the CJI had constituted a special bench to hear cases with regard to mining in the Aravalli hills and ranges.
In its order dated 10 January, 2024, a Justice Gavai-led bench had noted that issues of mining in Haryana were pending before a bench headed by Justice Oka, while those in Rajasthan’s Aravalli hills were placed before it.
The court went on to record: “We are of the view that since the issues with regard to mining in the Aravalli hills and ranges are common for both the states, it will be appropriate that the said matters are heard and decided by the same bench of this court, so as to avoid any conflicting order.”
Justice Gavai’s bench then asked the registrar (judicial) to place the matter before the CJI to take a call as to which bench to hear the case, like it did in the tree felling case.
Thereafter, the CJI on administrative side issued orders and constituted a fresh bench, comprising justices Gavai and Oka, to hear the case regarding mining in Aravalli ranges and hills. This bench, on 9 May, had restrained four states—Rajasthan, Delhi, Gujarat and Haryana—from granting permission for mining in the Aravallis without the court’s permission.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: How Supreme Court’s process of designating senior advocates changed in last 7 yrs & what it is now