Supreme Court seeks explanation from Delhi LG over cutting of trees in violation of court order

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi VK Saxena, who serves as the Chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), to file an affidavit exaplaining which officers of the DDA should be held liable for cutting trees in Delhi's Ridge Forest area in violation of court orders [In Re: Felling of Trees].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was dealing with a batch of contempt petitions raising concern over large scale tree felling, particularly in and around the Delhi Ridge Forest.

The Court observed today that these trees were felled despite earlier orders to preserve such trees to protect the pristine nature of the area. According to earlier directives, these trees could not be cut without the Court's permission.

The Court has now sought an explanation on how these orders were flouted and which officers are responsible for the same.

"Let the affidavit be personally filed by Chairperson of the DDA (Delhi LG) ... with information which is with the chairperson of DDA ... The affidavit shall explain how the timber felled has been dealt with and steps taken to attribute accountability to the officials who were in breach of directions of this court. Let this compliance affidavit be filed before the next date of hearing. List next Tuesday (October 22)," the Court ordered.

The Bench said that it needs an explanation on whether the LG (DDA chairman) was aware that trees were cut in violation of court orders, and whether any steps have been taken against erring DDA officers or to restore the ecological damage caused due to the tree felling.

"What steps have been taken to identify officers responsible for a willful act of suppression that felling of trees had actually taken place without intimation to the court? Whether any disciplinary proceedings have been taken against officers, and whether criminal action should be taken against all officials for the breach of binding directions of the court? If the chairperson of DDA is of the view that initiation of criminal prosecution is taken up, we expect such action is taken without waiting for directions of this court," the Court added.

Representing the LG Saxena, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani today maintained that the DDA Chairman/ LG had no role to play and was only a signing authority in a process that was started by the Delhi's Environment and Forest Department.

"How can LG be involved? He is not the final authority.. he only said please expedite this process on February 3 ... No one is obligated to hear me. I can show that," Jethmalani submitted.

He added that several of the Court's queries today have already been answered earlier and may be repeated in the fresh affidavit sought by the Bench from the LG.

The Court replied that it would hold the LG personally accountable for any statement made in his affidavit. The CJI added that the Court is expecting that errant officers of the DDA be held accountable.

"If this time, it gets repeated, he will take personal responsibility for this.We don't want the vice chairperson to tell us anything. We want the highest authority to tell us. Before we take action, we want action to be taken by DDA - which means, disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings and attaching of accountability," CJI Chandrachud said.

The matter involves suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against the Vice-Chairman of the DDA, Subhasish Panda. The DDA was put on the dock after over a hundred trees in the Delhi Ridge Forest were cut by the authority in violation of court orders.

The Court had also taken strong exception to an apparent attempt to cover up the role of Delhi LG in felling the trees. A Division Bench led by Justice AS Oka even demanded an explanation from the DDA on whether it had cut the trees based on the LG's directives or whether the decision was made independently.

However, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai later observed that the Justice Oka-led Bench should not have heard the matter since a similar case was already pending before the Justice Gavai led Bench.

Subsequently, the matter were eventually taken up by a Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Huzefa Ahmadi and Madhavi Divan as well as advocates Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Nikhil Rohatgi, Ankit Shah and Manan Verma.

Advocate ADN Rao is the Amicus Curiae in the matter.

Senior Advocates Vikas Singh and Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the DDA.

[Read Live Coverage]