The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena's claim that he had been apprised about unauthorised tree cutting in Delhi's ridge area only in June.

Saxena has been in the line of fire after it came to light that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had allowed felling of trees in violation of the top court's directive that prior permission should be obtained from the Court for cutting trees.

The tree cutting had taken place in February. Saxena claimed that he got to know that the Court's nod was needed only in March - after the tree felling began in February.

In an affidavit filed before the Court, LG Saxena also told the Court that he was apprised about the actual cutting of trees only in June.

However, a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra after going through the record found that Delhi Development Authority's then Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda, who has since been transferred to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), had informed LG Saxena about the tree cutting in April itself.

"The extract from the affidavit shows that the chairperson was made aware of the fact that actual felling took place before Feb 16, 2024 in April," the Court noted in today's order.

The Court thus said the statement that it was only on June 10 that Saxena was apprised of the fact that the actual felling took place in February, seemed misplaced.

"Thus we call for an additional affidavit from the vice chairperson of DDA on the above discrepancy. We also direct that all original record be produced before this court. List on Tuesday...let the affidavit state the specific date when they came to know about felling of trees," the Court ordered.

The Court was hearing a case concerning illegal felling of hundreds of trees in Delhi's ridge area.

The Bench had recently asked the LG to explain how the trees in question were cut, despite earlier directives by the Court against cutting trees in the area without the top court's permission.

In an affidavit dated October 22, LG Saxena said that he was not made aware of the requirement of prior permission, and had acted in public interest.

The LG further emphasised that the tree cutting was for an important project in which ₹2,200 crores of public funds have already been invested.

Further, the actual figure of the trees felled is approximately 642 trees and not 1,100 trees as earlier told to the Court, he clarified.

Notably, the LG urged that DDA's Vice-Chairman, Subhasish Panda, be discharged from the contempt case initiated against him.

While highlighting the contempt of court in the case, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who represented the petitioners, today submitted that a formal notice would have to be issued in the case.

"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," it was submitted.

Sankaranarayanan also submitted that the DDA and other such authorities have been applying for such permissions since 1995. Hence, they cannot cite lack of knowledge now, he said.

It was also submitted that though the cutting of trees ostensibly started from February 15, the petitioners have reasons to believe that it was before that.

LG Saxena in his affidavit has said that he came to know about cutting only in June. In this regard, CJI Chandrachud asked how the petitioners can establish the fact that Delhi LG knew about cutting when he visited the place in February.

"When matter came to Supreme Court and DDA pressed its application and then withdraws it and then does not even disclose that such a violation took place," Sankaranarayanan responded.

The senior counsel also referred to news reports dating back to May when the case was being reported by the newspapers.

The Court also after going through the record found that the DDA VC had informed the LG in April itself about the cutting of trees and asked how it can now be claimed that LG was made aware about in June.

"If you see June 10 letter by vice chairman to the LG.. he says LG is apprised of the blunder that tree felling has taken place ... in April. And now LG says he came to know about it in June. So now do not blame the vice chairman," CJI Chandrachud remarked.

However, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared for the DDA, submitted that the case was not as plain as it was being made out to be.

However, Singh also conceded there was a clear case of contempt of court.

"It is a clear case of contempt and it has to be seen who has done. The question is will this court haul someone up for contempt or take remedial measures. The trees are gone now," he submitted.