2025 INSC 784 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL / INHERENT / CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Contempt Petition (Civil) No. _______ / 2025

(Diary No. 21171/2024)
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 / 1985

Bindu Kapurea ….Petitioner(s)

versus

Subhashish Panda and others ….Respondent(s)

WITH

SMC (Crl.) No. 2/2024

WITH

I.A. No. 98622 / 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 / 1995

JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed invoking Article 129 of the
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Constitution of India, Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.05.28
16:49:38 IST

1971, and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for

Reason:

Page 1 of 48
 Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. It prays for the initiation of

contempt proceedings against the Respondents for wilful

disobedience of this Court’s order dated 09.05.1996 passed in W.P.

(C) No. 4677/1985, titled MC Mehta v. Union of India & Others.

2. These proceedings arise from a decades-long saga that is associated

with a series of writ petitions, wherein this Court has consistently

endeavoured to mitigate further environmental degradation in the

National Capital Territory of Delhi and across the country.

A. FACTS

3. At this juncture, it becomes imperative to set out the sequence of

events from the outset, in order to provide a comprehensive

understanding of the developments that have culminated into the

present proceedings.

A.1 Brief background of the cases giving rise to the present

controversy

3.1. MC Mehta (supra) is an ongoing matter comprising petitions

through which this Court has pronounced several landmark

judgments giving new dimensions to environmental jurisprudence,

with the specific objective of regulating land use and shutting down

of hazardous industries to protect the environment. The said Writ

Petition was initially instituted on 16.04.1985 in public interest, to

bring to light the grave and escalating pollution of the river Ganga,

Page 2 of 48
 caused by the indiscriminate discharge of vast quantities of sewage

from the city of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. It thereafter

metamorphosed into a case through which this Court routinely

addressed various threats posed to the environment and ecological

biodiversity.

3.2. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) notified the Master Plan

for Delhi Perspective 2001 on 05.08.1990 (Delhi Master Plan),

wherein it was expressly provided that no further encroachment or

infringement upon the Delhi Ridge would be permitted, and that

the Ridge would be preserved and maintained in its pristine

condition. To explicate, the Delhi Ridge constitutes a natural rock

formation, forming a part of the ancient Aravalli hill range. It

encompasses approximately 7,777 hectares of forest land and

extends over a stretch of nearly 35 kilometres—commencing from

the Bhatti Mines area in the southeast, traversing through

Tughlaqabad, and tapering towards the northern periphery of the

city at Wazirabad. Commonly referred to as the ‘Lungs of Delhi’, the

Ridge plays a vital ecological role and forms part of one of the oldest

geological formations on the planet, with its origins dating back to

the Proterozoic era.

3.3. The Delhi Master Plan accordingly recognised that, in light of the

pressures exerted by rapid urbanisation over the years, the Delhi

Page 3 of 48
 Ridge Area had been subjected to significant threats and adverse

environmental impacts. In response, the Master Plan mandated

that the Ridge Area be clearly identified and conserved with the

utmost care, taking into consideration its critical role as a natural

buffer against escalating pollution levels in the National Capital

Territory. It further stipulated that afforestation efforts within the

Delhi Ridge must prioritise the use of indigenous species, with

minimal reliance on artificial landscaping, in order to preserve the

ecological integrity and natural character of the forest.

3.4. Commensurately, in M.C. Mehta (supra), this Court issued a series

of directions for the conservation and protection of the Delhi Ridge.

Pursuant thereto, the then Lieutenant Governor of Delhi issued an

order dated 06.10.1995, constituting a dedicated body, known as

the Ridge Management Board (RMB), which was entrusted with the

responsibility of protecting and restoring the Delhi Ridge Forest.

The RMB was established under the Chairmanship of the Chief

Secretary of Delhi and was assigned various functions, including

the implementation of the management scheme for the Ridge

forests, protection and demarcation of its boundaries, and the

preparation and execution of detailed plans for the ecological

upgradation and long-term preservation of the Ridge area.

Page 4 of 48
3.5. In furtherance of the aforementioned directions, this Court, vide

orders dated 25.01.1996 and 13.03.1996, directed that regardless

of the mandate contained in Section 154 (vii) of the Delhi Land

Reforms Act, 1954, the uncultivated surplus land of the Gaon

Sabha falling within the Delhi Ridge shall not vest in the Gaon

Sabha, and shall instead be used for the creation of a Reserved

Forest. In compliance with the said directions, the Government of

the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) issued a

notification dated 02.04.1996, declaring 10,517 acres of

uncultivated Gaon Sabha land, as surplus and placed it at the

disposal of the Forest Department. This area now forms a part of

the aforementioned 7,777 hectares of the Notified Ridge Area.

3.6. To this end, this Court also passed the order dated 09.05.1996,

which the Petitioner herein alleges has been violated by the

Respondents. The order reads as follows:

“The provisions of the Master Plan makes it mandatory that

the Ridge is to be kept free from encroachers and its pristine
glory must be maintained for all times. It is a pity that
neither the Central Government nor the N.C.T., Delhi
Administration has ever applied its mind towards
maintaining the Ridge and River Yamuna, which is
necessary to maintain the ecological balance of the city. We
are of the view that no cut off date can come in the way of
relocating the J.J. dwellers which are encroaching on the
Ridge. The directions given by this Court in the order dated
April 9, 1996 shall have to be complied with. We have
already directed in the said order that all encroachers must
be shifted from the Ridge before October 31, 1996. Mr.
Khanduri, present in Court, has very fairly stated that the
work of relocation of J.J. dwellers from Ridge has already

Page 5 of 48
 been undertaken on war footing. We have no doubt that the
Union of India shall render all assistance to the N.C.T., Delhi
Administration in clearing the Ridge area. The next progress
report be filed in July, 1996.”

3.7. It may be seen from the contents of the aforesaid order that this

Court reiterated the exigency of protecting the Delhi Ridge and

ensuring that it remains free from encroachment, so as to preserve

its pristine condition. In doing so, the Court referred to the

statutory Delhi Master Plan, which unequivocally proscribed any

infringement upon the Ridge and mandated its continuous

protection and maintenance. The Court further observed that

neither the Central Government nor the GNCTD had, until then,

adequately addressed the imperative of maintaining the Delhi Ridge

and the River Yamuna—both of which were essential to preserving

the ecological balance of the city. Accordingly, the Court issued

stringent directions to the concerned authorities to ensure the

removal of all encroachments from the Ridge area on or before

31.10.1996.

3.8. Parallelly, a public interest litigation, being W.P. (C) No. 202/1995,

titled T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, had

been instituted before this Court on 18.02.1995. The proceedings

had initially arisen out of concerns regarding large-scale

deforestation, illegal logging, and unsustainable practices affecting

forest lands in the Nilgiris region. Over time, this case also came to

Page 6 of 48
 be regarded as one of the most significant judicial interventions in

the realm of forest preservation, environmental governance and

conservation of natural resources in India through the innovative

interpretation and application of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980

(FCA 1980). We find it necessary to highlight this matter, as the

directions issued therein in relation to the Delhi Ridge

subsequently intersect with the issues raised in the instant

Contempt Petition.

3.9. Thereafter, in congruence with the directions put forth in M.C.

Mehta (supra), this Court in the T.N. Godavarman (supra)

constituted the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) on

09.05.2002, tasked with monitoring the implementation of its

orders in respect of removal of encroachments in ecologically

sensitive areas, implementation of working plans, compensatory

afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues. This

Court, in both of these cases, thus sought to continuously monitor

initiatives geared towards the protection and conservation of the

environment in the country, and also, specifically, the Delhi Ridge.

3.10. Thus, to recapitulate, the forested expanse known as the Delhi

Ridge continues to enjoy the protection of this Court, as reaffirmed

in MC Mehta (supra) by the order dated 09.05.1996. In tandem

with the establishment of the CEC in T.N. Godavarman (supra), it

Page 7 of 48
 stands settled that any construction or developmental activity

within the Delhi Ridge must receive prior approval from the RMB

and thereafter from this Court, for which a proposal is to be mooted

through the CEC.

A.2 Events leading to the filing of the Contempt Petition

3.11. In this backdrop, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Delhi,

cum Member Secretary of the RMB vide letter dated 21.09.2023,

forwarded the Board’s recommendation to the CEC. This

communication pertained to an application submitted by the DDA

seeking approval for the construction of approach roads connecting

the main Chattarpur Road to SAARC University, the Central Armed

Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), and other

establishments located in Maidangarhi, including the areas of

Sayurpur and Satbari—all of which fall within the ecologically

sensitive Southern Ridge region.

3.12. According to the DDA, the area in question had witnessed the

emergence of several large-scale residential and institutional

developments, including the SAARC University; housing for

officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Delhi Police,

and the National Investigation Agency (NIA); as well as CAPFIMS.

Despite the scale and significance of these developments, the region

was reportedly beset with inadequate access infrastructure. The

Page 8 of 48
 DDA accordingly proposed specific alignments and upgradations

traversing notified forest land within the Delhi Ridge, with the

stated objective of facilitating seamless access to the residential

and institutional establishments referred to above.

3.13. Given the impending interventions into ecologically sensitive areas,

the DDA, through the aforementioned application, sought

permission to construct two approach roads—namely, the

‘Gaushala Road’ connecting Chattarpur Road to SAARC University

and the ‘SAARC University–CAPFIMS Road’. The DDA proposed to

utilise 3.60 hectares of the ecologically sensitive Southern Ridge

and an additional 0.968 hectares of Morphological Ridge land for

the alignment, construction, and widening of these roads, spanning

a total length of 2.72 kilometres, which entailed the felling of

approximately 1,051 trees. To clarify, Morphological Ridge land

refers to areas that, while lying outside the officially notified

boundaries of the Delhi Ridge, exhibit geological and ecological

features characteristic of the Ridge itself. Owing to their

environmental significance, such lands are accorded the same level

of protection as the notified Ridge areas, and any activity thereon

is subject to the same regulatory safeguards and judicial

supervision.

Page 9 of 48
3.14. Thereupon, the CEC, after due consideration of the DDA’s

application, approved such proposal and submitted Report No.

36/2023 dated 06.12.2023, containing its detailed observations

and recommendations. In arriving at its conclusions, the CEC took

into account, inter alia, the following considerations:

i. That the proposed project is in public interest, and the extent

of forest land sought to be utilised for the road development

represents the bare minimum required;

ii. That the existing seven-metre-wide road is already in use and

necessitates upgradation to a four-lane divided configuration

with footpaths on either side to facilitate access to institutions

of national significance being developed in the vicinity;

iii. That a portion of the forest land proposed for the project is

already in use by commuters;

iv. That all requisite statutory clearances are to be obtained by

the user agency/DDA under the FCA 1980 for the diversion of

3.60 hectares of forest land for non-forest purposes, along with

necessary approvals from the Standing Committee of the

National Board for Wild Life (SCNBWL) under the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972 for areas falling within the eco-sensitive

zone;

Page 10 of 48
 v. That the user agency/DDA shall bear the cost of planting and

maintaining 2,960 saplings—ten times the number of trees

(296) proposed to be cut or transplanted from non-forest land;

vi. That the DDA has expressed its willingness to make available

suitable land for undertaking such compensatory plantation;

and

vii. That the DDA has already earmarked 3.68 hectares of non-

forest land at Sector 29, Dwarka, Delhi, to be transferred to

the Forest Department in lieu of the 3.60 hectares of forest

land proposed to be diverted.

3.15. The CEC finally concluded as follows:

“It is recommended that this Hon’ble Court may consider

granting approval to the Applicant, Delhi Development Authority
for construction of the approach road from Chattarpur Main Road
to SAARC University (1.070 kms) and SAARC University to
CAPFIMS (1.650 kms) subject to the following conditions:

i. the user-agency shall deposit 5% of the project cost,

proportionate to the area falling within the ridge area, with
the Ridge Management Board Fund and which fund under
the close supervision of the Ridge Management Board shall
be used for protection of the Delhi Ridge by the Forest
Department of Delhi Government;
ii. the user-agency shall obtain prior clearance under Forest
(Conservation) Act 1980 in respect of the forest land being
diverted for construction of the road and abide by all the
conditions of forest clearance including payment of NPV and
cost of compensatory afforestation;
iii. the user-agency shall obtain necessary approval from the
Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife in

Page 11 of 48
 respect of the project land falling within the eco-sensitive
zone of Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary;
iv. the user-agency before felling/removal of 296 trees shall
obtain necessary permission under the provisions of Delhi
Preservation of Tree Act, 1994;
v. the user-agency shall deposit the cost of planting and
maintenance of 2960 indigenous plants with the Forest
Department, Government of Delhi and make available
suitable land for compensatory planting before the
permission for felling is granted under the provisions of
Delhi Preservation of Tree Act 1994;
vi. the Forest Department, Government of NCT Delhi will
undertake the planting of 2960 saplings of the indigenous
species at the site to be made available by DDA for the
purpose; and
vii. Forest Department will raise compensatory planting over
3.68 ha. of non forest land at Sector-29, Dwarka, Delhi in
lieu of the 3.60 ha. of forest land proposed to be diverted for
non forest use.”

3.16. As matters stood thus, a Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2024 was

issued, wherein the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (LG), exercising

powers conferred under Section 29 of the Delhi Preservation of

Trees Act, 1994 (1994 Act), granted an exemption in terms of

Section 9(3) of the said Act—in public interest—for an area

measuring 4.9955 hectares to facilitate the construction of

approach roads from Chattarpur to SAARC University, CAPFIMS,

and other adjoining establishments. The notification stipulated an

advance deposit of ₹2,40,54,000/- by the DDA towards a security

amount earmarked for the creation and maintenance of

compensatory plantation. Furthermore, it laid down a series of

Page 12 of 48
 binding conditions upon the DDA to be fulfilled: prior to

undertaking the felling or transplantation of trees, during the

execution of such activities, and thereafter for the purpose of

assessing the success of the plantation efforts. The release of the

aforementioned security deposit by the Tree Officer/Deputy

Conservator of Forests was made contingent upon the satisfactory

fulfilment of these stipulated conditions.

3.17. On 15.02.2024, the DDA moved I.A. No. 40494/2024 in MC Mehta

(supra), seeking this Court’s permission for the felling and

translocation of 1,051 trees in connection with the construction of

the proposed approach roads. In the interim, the Petitioner came to

learn of tree-felling activities underway in the Satbari area of South

Delhi on 23.02.2024. They visited the site on 24.02.2024 and

allegedly observed that a substantial portion of the Ridge Forest

had been decimated, with heavy machinery actively engaged in

levelling the land. Disturbed by the scale and apparent brazenness

of the activity, the Petitioner then contacted the Green Helpline of

the Department of Forests and Wildlife, GNCTD, to register a

complaint. They however, received a telephonic response on

25.02.2024 from a Forest Guard, who informed them that the

ongoing tree cutting was being carried out pursuant to due

Page 13 of 48
 authorisation, having been permitted by the LG vide the Gazette

Notification dated 14.02.2024.

3.18. It is pertinent to highlight that the aforesaid IAs preferred by the

DDA were dismissed by this Court on the grounds of vagueness

vide its order dated 04.03.2024. The Court underscored that the

DDA, being an instrumentality of the State, bore a heightened

responsibility to prioritise environmental protection and was

expected to explore all viable alternatives before resorting to the

felling of trees, limiting such action strictly to those instances

where it was absolutely unavoidable. The Court further noted that

no prior permission had been sought under the FCA 1980.

Consequently, the DDA was directed to revisit its proposal by

engaging the services of qualified experts and ensuring that the

revised exercise would be conducted in a manner that minimised

tree felling to the greatest extent possible. Only upon undertaking

these corrective steps was the DDA permitted to file a fresh

application seeking the same relief.

3.19. The Petitioner has alleged that the DDA failed to disclose to this

Court, during the hearing on 04.03.2024, that the area for which it

had sought permission to fell trees had, in fact, already been

cleared. It is the Petitioner’s case that the DDA, without awaiting

the Court’s adjudication on its applications and in the absence of

Page 14 of 48
 any express permission, proceeded with the clearing of the Ridge

reserved forest as well as the felling of trees on non-forest land to

facilitate construction of the approach roads. In view of the above,

the Petitioner has preferred the instant Contempt Petition,

asserting that such actions on the part of the First Respondent

constitute a wilful and deliberate violation of this Court’s binding

order dated 09.05.1996 passed in MC Mehta (supra). The

Petitioner has accordingly prayed for the initiation of contempt

proceedings against the Vice Chairman of DDA/First Respondent.

A.3 Events subsequent to initiation of Contempt Proceedings

3.20. In addition to the events averred in the Contempt Petition, it will be

appropriate to bring the subsequent developments of material

significance that merit due consideration. The instant Contempt

Petition came up for hearing on 09.05.2024, when notice was

issued, the First Respondent was directed to maintain status quo

and refrain from carrying out any further felling of trees.

3.21. On the following date of hearing, i.e., 16.05.2024, this Court took

cognisance of the averments made in the affidavit filed by the First

Respondent and deemed it appropriate to issue suo motu notice of

criminal contempt, registered as SMC (Crl.) No. 2/2024. That

affidavit revealed that a substantial number of trees had been felled

without obtaining the requisite permissions from the prescribed

Page 15 of 48
 authorities, besides the blatant contravention of this Court’s

binding orders. This Court, therefore, expressed grave concern,

observing that the DDA’s actions of unauthorised felling of more

than 1100 trees constituted a shocking disregard for the Rule of

Law and amounted to interference with the administration of

justice.

3.22. This Court thereafter proceeded to pass a series of consequential

orders, namely: (i) the First Respondent was directed to produce

the document evidencing the approval of the LG and to furnish the

names of all officers responsible for the breach of this Court’s

orders; (ii) the First Respondent was mandated to personally

address a letter to the LG disclosing that, while the proposal for

approval was forwarded to him, the material fact that the trees had

already been felled was wilfully suppressed; (iii) ordered an inquiry

into the conduct of the officers who had entrusted the tree felling

to the contractor; (iv) directed the DDA to immediately halt all

further activities pertaining to the two approach roads and to

deploy appropriate officers to ensure strict compliance; (v)

appointed an Independent Agency comprising of three eminent

environmentalists (Committee) who were to be duly assisted by

officers from the Forest Survey of India (FSI) to assess the number

of trees felled, the extent of environmental degradation caused, and

Page 16 of 48
 to propose suitable species for replantation along with other

ecological restoration measures; and (vi) directed the DDA to

conduct an internal inquiry into the lapse committed by its Legal

Department in failing to brief its counsel correctly on 04.03.2024

regarding the ongoing tree felling. Further, this Court also

restrained the RMB from clearing project proposals for the

diversion of the Ridge forests without seeking permission from this

Court.

3.23. In the meantime, the Committee constituted by this Court

submitted its preliminary report detailing the number of trees felled

and the extent of environmental degradation caused. The report

observed that the DDA had failed to offer a satisfactory explanation

for the urgency with which the tree felling was undertaken. It

cautioned that the absence of tree cover along the road could result

in the creation of a heat island and lead to intensified urbanisation

of the adjoining areas. The Committee further noted that no

transplantation had taken place at the designated site and that, of

the 145 trees transplanted at alternate, non-designated locations,

nearly half comprised the invasive Subabool species, which ought

to be removed. In light of these findings, the Committee

recommended both possible outcomes—either the removal of the

Page 17 of 48
 road to facilitate restorative measures or its completion, should this

Court so deem fit.

3.24. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the First Respondent also filed

an affidavit dated 19.06.2024, tendering an unconditional apology

and detailing steps undertaken in compliance. It was submitted

that: (i) corrective measures were underway, including disciplinary

action against the errant DDA officials and the formulation of

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to prevent recurrences; (ii)

the First Respondent was on sanctioned medical leave from

16.02.2024 to 02.03.2024, and worked from home until

12.03.2024, during which period he remained unaware of the tree

felling and therefore failed to apprise this Court; (iii) an internal

Inquiry Committee found the following officials responsible:

Executive Engineer Manoj Kumar Yadav (who instructed the

contractor to fell the trees), Engineering Division officials Pawan

Kumar and Ayush Saraswat (who permitted the felling), and

Superintendent Engineer Pankaj Verma (who, along with Yadav,

was found to have suppressed material facts from this Court on

04.03.2024); (iv) all four officers had been suspended and

disciplinary proceedings initiated; (v) while prior contractor

agreements did not include clauses mandating Court permission

for tree felling, all future tenders would expressly incorporate such

Page 18 of 48
 terms; (vi) work at the site had been fully halted, and approximately

174 trees in non-forest areas and 468 in forest areas were

confirmed to have been felled; (vii) the DDA would cooperate fully

with the Committee constituted by this Court in implementing all

remedial measures; (viii) the Chief Legal Advisor of the DDA had

been misinformed by Manoj Kumar Yadav, leading to incorrect

submissions before this Court; and (ix) the DDA had identified 185

acres of land for afforestation and committed to planting 100 trees

for every tree felled, in addition to 500 trees along the widened

sections of the site to aid ecological restoration.

3.25. This Court, on 24.06.2024, while considering the affidavit of the

First Respondent, also examined the Inquiry Committee Report

annexed thereto. Particular attention was drawn to three emails

allegedly sent by the Executive Engineer instructing the contractor

to commence tree felling. These emails purportedly referenced a

visit by the LG, in his capacity as Chairperson of the DDA, to the

site on 03.02.2024, during which he allegedly directed the clearing

of trees. However, upon further questioning, it emerged that there

was ambiguity as to whether the Learned LG had actually visited

the tree-felling site or only the CAPFIMS campus. In view of this

uncertainty, and considering the Executive Engineer’s subsequent

claim before the Inquiry Committee that the emails were

Page 19 of 48
 manipulated, the Court directed the First Respondent to submit a

clear and unequivocal statement clarifying whether any such

direction had, in fact, been issued by the LG.

3.26. In this backdrop, this Court deemed it appropriate to show cause

to the following officers of the DDA: (i) Manoj Kumar Yadav,

Executive Engineer, SMD 5, DDA; (ii) Pawan Kumar, Assistant

Engineer-I, SMD 5, South Zone, Engineering Division, DDA; (iii)

Ayush Saraswat, Assistant Engineer-II, SMD 5, South Zone,

Engineering Division, DDA; and (iv) Pankaj Verma, Superintending

Engineer, SE/SCC-2, South Zone, DDA. Additionally, while

perusing the affidavit filed by the First Respondent, the Court

underscored that the appointment of serving judicial officers from

the Delhi Higher Judicial Services as legal advisors to the DDA

constituted a clear violation of the principle of judicial

independence and the doctrine of separation of powers.

Accordingly, it directed the Delhi High Court to take appropriate

action concerning such appointments.

3.27. On 26.06.2024, this Court directed several individuals and

institutional authorities to file affidavits to shed further light on the

incident. First, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Member (Engineering), DDA,

was directed to file a detailed affidavit clarifying the events during

the visit of the Learned LG, since he had been present at the time.

Page 20 of 48
 Second, the discrepancies in the Gazette Notification dated

14.02.2024 were noted, observing that no permission had been

granted by the designated Tree Officer, nor had any valid exemption

been extended to the DDA for the felling of trees. When asked about

the whereabouts of the timber from the felled trees, the First

Respondent failed to provide any response. Consequently, notice

was issued to the GNCTD through the Principal Secretary,

Department of Environment and Forests. In this regard, notice was

also issued to the Tree Authority constituted under Section 3 of the

1994 Act, directing it to file an affidavit explaining its inaction in

the face of the DDA’s violations. Third, the DDA was instructed to

begin implementing certain recommendations from the

Committee’s preliminary report, specifically those listed under

paragraph 1 of the section titled ‘Suggestions and

Recommendations’, including the removal of the tarmac and sub-

base materials of the road to expose bare soil and initiate

appropriate afforestation and ecological restoration measures.

3.28. Pursuant to this Court’s directions in its orders dated 24.06.2024

and 26.06.2024, multiple affidavits were filed by concerned

individuals and institutions, which are briefly summarised herein.

The First Respondent, in his affidavit dated 02.07.2024, explained

that he had informed the office of the Engineer Member, DDA, on

Page 21 of 48
 02.02.2024 regarding the LG’s proposed visit to CAPFIMS on

03.02.2024. However, he also acknowledged that no formal

minutes of the LG’s site visit were recorded, though the names of

the officers present during the visit were provided in an annexure.

Further, with regard to the implementation of the Committee’s

recommendations, the DDA has sought guidance from that

Committee to ensure compliance with the directions of this Court.

3.29. Similarly, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Member (Engineering) DDA, gave

details of the senior officers who were present at the time of the

LG’s visit on 03.02.2024 and that the said visit was only to inspect

the CAPFIMS Hospital and assess the Central Public Works

Department’s (CPWD) preparedness for its timely completion. The

affidavit further highlighted that the LG directed CPWD officials to

expedite the completion of the project. With respect to the CAPFIMS

approach road, the LG was informed that requisite permissions for

tree felling were still awaited from the competent authorities. Upon

hearing this, the LG allegedly emphasised the need to expedite the

process.

3.30. The Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest Department of

GNCTD also filed a detailed affidavit, which outlined the following:

(i) several initiatives had been undertaken to expand forest and tree

cover in Delhi, including efforts to convert 1,700 acres of the

Page 22 of 48
Yamuna Flood Plains into forest land and the development of City

Forests; (ii) the project in question aimed to construct roads

connecting institutions of national importance, including

CAPFIMS; (iii) the DDA had submitted three applications: one to

the RMB on 18.08.2023 seeking this Court’s approval for the

construction of approach roads, another on 09.12.2023 for

diversion of 3.6 hectares of Ridge forest land and felling of 629

trees, and a third on 29.12.2023 seeking permission to fell 422

trees in non-forest areas; (iv) the Gazette Notification dated

14.02.2024 merely exempted the applicability of Section 9(3) of the

1994 Act and did not amount to permission for felling trees; (v)

while the DDA had initiated approval processes under the RMB and

the FCA 1980, these had not been completed; (vi) action was being

taken against the DDA for violations under both the 1994 Act and

the FCA 1980—this included issuance of show cause notices, an

interim order by the Tree Officer directing the plantation of at least

100 native trees, and initiation of a criminal case under relevant

provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and

the 1994 Act; and (vii) adequate infrastructure had been provided

to the Forest Department to enhance monitoring and vigilance over

forest areas. The Tree Officer, in his affidavit, echoed similar

submissions and further clarified that, as a quasi-judicial

Page 23 of 48
 authority, proceedings under the 1994 Act had been initiated

before him since 05.03.2024.

3.31. The matter was heard again on 12.07.2024, when this Court

deemed it necessary to ensure complete clarity regarding the visit

of the LG. Accordingly, it directed all officials present during the

site visit, along with the First Respondent and any other officer

possessing relevant information, to file affidavits. In addition, since

the contractor M/s. Satya Prakash and Brothers Private Limited

was responsible for the felling of trees, notice was issued directing

the contractor to disclose the location of the felled timber and the

transplanted trees. Lastly, the GNCTD was directed to file a

supplementary affidavit clarifying whether any officer of the Forest

Department or the Tree Authority was present during the felling of

trees.

3.32. In compliance with this Court’s directions, the relevant

stakeholders once again filed their respective affidavits. The

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, GNCTD; Ashok

Kumar Gupta, Member (Engineering) DDA; the Principal Secretary,

Environment and Forest Department, GNCTD; and the Chief

Secretary, GNCTD all reiterated a consistent position—that during

the LG’s visit on 03.02.2024, he was informed that the requisite

permissions under the 1994 Act and the FCA 1980 were still

Page 24 of 48
 awaited. Ashok Kumar Gupta further stated that the felling of trees,

which began on 16.02.2024, was carried out under the bona fide

belief that the recommendations of the CEC dated 06.12.2023 and

the subsequent Gazette Notification exempted the need for further

permissions. Meanwhile, the Principal Secretary clarified, in

response to the Court’s queries, that no officer from the Forest

Department or the Tree Authority was present during the felling

and also submitted that steps had been initiated to withdraw the

Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2024. Lastly, the contractor, in his

affidavit, stated that he acted on the instructions of Executive

Engineer Manoj Kumar Yadav, who had emailed him on 07.02.2024

regarding the removal of bushes, shrubs, and dry trees, and

followed up further emails on 14.02.2024 reiterating the same

while referring to the LG’s visit on 03.02.2024.

3.33. This Court on 16.10.2024, further observed that the material on

record required further elaboration, particularly from the LG. The

Court specifically sought clarity on the role played by the LG, the

point at which he became aware of the tree felling activity, the steps

taken thus far to remediate the ecological damage, and the

identification of officers responsible for the suppression of facts

surrounding the incident.

Page 25 of 48
3.34. In response, the LG filed an affidavit stating that the actual number

of trees felled was approximately 642, as opposed to the alleged

figure of 1,100. He further submitted that, during his visit on

03.02.2024, he had not been informed of the requirement to obtain

prior permission from this Court. He first became aware of such a

requirement upon reviewing the DDA’s proposal dated 21.03.2024

and was subsequently informed by the First Respondent through

his letter dated 10.06.2024 that the tree felling had commenced on

16.02.2024. The affidavit also noted that ecological restoration

efforts were underway through tree plantations, and that the

Inquiry Committee constituted by the DDA had already taken

action against the officials found responsible.

3.35. Upon perusing the LG’s affidavit on 24.10.2024, this Court noted

that further clarity was required regarding the precise date on

which the LG became aware that tree felling had commenced on

16.02.2024. Accordingly, the Court directed both the First

Respondent and the LG to file supplementary affidavits. In

response, the LG reiterated the submissions made in his earlier

affidavit and clarified that he became aware of the tree felling only

on 12.04.2024 during a meeting. The First Respondent, in his

affidavit, corroborated this timeline in part and submitted that he

first learnt of the felling on 18.03.2024 upon the issuance of a show

Page 26 of 48
 cause notice by the Delhi High Court to the Department of Forest

and Wildlife. He was thereafter informed by the Member Engineer

on 21.03.2024 that the felling had, in fact, commenced on

16.02.2024. With this, all affidavits and relevant material filed by

the concerned stakeholders appear to have been placed on record.

3.36. After this saga of affidavits was completed, we may notice that the

FSI, pursuant to this Court’s order dated 16.05.2024, submitted

its final report containing key findings that are critical to the

adjudication of the present controversy. Based on extensive

fieldwork and surveys, the FSI reported that approximately 1,670

trees were felled, both within the reserved forest area and beyond,

resulting in substantial carbon stock loss. The report also

uncovered alarming discrepancies in the data provided by the Delhi

Forest Department and concluded with observations pointing to

systemic deficiencies in the Department’s operational practices.

3.37. Having undertaken the arduous task of tracing the root cause of

this issue over the course of nearly a year, this Court ultimately

afforded all parties an opportunity to tender their submissions and,

on 21.01.2025, reserved judgment in the matter.

B. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

4. Although the parties’ respective positions are discernible from the

multitude of affidavits examined above, it remains essential to

Page 27 of 48
 canvass the contentions advanced by them in support of their

claims.

5. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the Petitioner, laid a strong challenge to the actions of

the First Respondent and DDA officials, emphasising the

irreversible nature of the ecological damage caused. Seeking strict

action against the errant officials in view of the grave nature of

contempt committed, learned Senior Counsel adduced the

following contentions:

(a) There was a deliberate and coordinated attempt to conceal

material facts from this Court, during the hearing dated

04.03.2024. The felling of trees had not only commenced on

16.02.2024 but had also been wilfully carried out and

completed over a span of ten days, without obtaining

permission from either this Court or the relevant statutory

authorities. Notably, during the same period, in some related

proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court, the DDA

suppressed this critical information and got the matter

adjourned.

(b) Even the CEC and the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court

were not informed of the tree felling exercise. However, rather

than accepting responsibility, the First Respondent has sought

Page 28 of 48
 to deflect blame onto the officials and engineers, attempting to

make them scapegoats for this unfortunate breach.

(c) The material on record, along with depositions by subordinate

engineers and officials, indicates that the tree felling and road

construction were expedited following the LG’s visit. This is

corroborated by internal emails and correspondence, which

suggest that the DDA, acting upon the LG’s express directions,

proceeded in haste and undertook the tree felling exercise

despite lacking requisite permissions.

(d) The road was sought to be widened despite the presence of an

already functional roadway, with the underlying intent of

facilitating access to private residences and farmhouses of

affluent individuals in the vicinity of CAPFIMS. The

justification of serving the Central Armed Police Forces has

been conveniently used as a pretext. This is further

corroborated by the First Respondent’s own affidavit dated

15.05.2024, wherein it is admitted that the infrastructure

project was envisaged not solely for the benefit of CAPFIMS and

other public institutions but also for adjoining areas such as

the Chattarpur Residential area and other large-scale

residential developments. It thus appears that the exercise was

Page 29 of 48
 an orchestrated effort to advance private interests, with

environmental degradation reduced to mere collateral damage.

6. Au contraire, Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Aditya

Sondhi, Mr. Anupam Lal Das, and Mr. Sanjay Jain, Learned Senior

Counsels, along with Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned Additional

Solicitor General of India, appeared on behalf of the DDA and the

GNCTD. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Learned Senior Counsel,

appeared on behalf of the LG. In the course of their oral arguments,

Mr. Singh sought to candidly acknowledge that the DDA officials

had defied the orders of this Court and that contempt had been

committed. Having regard to the same, the learned counsels

collectively advanced the following submissions:

(a) In light of the construction of CAPFIMS and other institutions

of national importance, there was an urgent requirement to

develop a broader approach road to facilitate improved access.

To achieve this objective, it became necessary to undertake

tree felling on both forest and non-forest land.

(b) The DDA accordingly initiated the statutory process by

submitting the requisite applications to the competent

authorities. However, the present controversy appears to have

stemmed from a misunderstanding among DDA officials, who,

upon receiving certain in-principle approvals from the

Page 30 of 48
 Government, erroneously presumed that all necessary

clearances—including from this Court—had been obtained.

Acting under this misconception, the DDA proceeded to carry

out the tree-felling operations on both categories of land.

(c) Significant steps have been initiated to scale up afforestation

efforts, including a commitment to plant 100 trees for every

tree felled, in line with the recommendations of the Committee

constituted by this Court as well as that of the FSI. To this end,

an area of approximately 185 acres has been identified for

carrying out the afforestation programme. Furthermore,

departmental proceedings have already been initiated against

the DDA officials responsible for the lapses, and appropriate

action will be taken in accordance with law.

C. ISSUES

7. In light of the extensive material placed on record and the detailed

submissions advanced by the parties, coupled with the

acknowledgement proffered by the Respondents that the orders of

this Court have been disobeyed, we find that the following question

falls for our consideration:

i. Whether the breach of the orders of this Court dated

09.05.1996 and 04.03.2024 by the Respondents was wilful

and deliberate, and if so, what are the remedial and corrective

Page 31 of 48
 measures that must be undertaken by them to purge the

contempt?

D. ANALYSIS

8. Based on the factual matrix and unique circumstances of this case,

we are of the view that our analysis and consequent directions must

remain focused and purpose-driven. Such a calibrated approach is

essential to ensure that the course adopted balances not only the

interests of the parties before us but also safeguards the concerns

of those who stand to be impacted by the outcome of these

proceedings for years to come.

9. There is no gainsaid that this Court enjoys wide and sweeping

powers to punish individuals found guilty of interfering with or

obstructing the administration of justice—an act that squarely falls

within the definition of contempt not only under the Contempt of

Courts Act, 1971 but most importantly, under Article 129 of the

Constitution of India. This Court, being a court of record, is thus

vested with inherent powers to punish contempt. These broad-

ranging powers are not merely procedural but are central to

preserving the dignity, authority, and effective functioning of the

judiciary. In fact, it has been quoted in a catena of decisions that

the contempt powers afforded to this Court are integral to

maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Page 32 of 48
10. The majesty of law is supreme and is unequivocally recognised by

the Constitution through the conferment of plenary powers of

contempt upon this Court. Unlike jurisdictions where contempt is

solely governed by statutory law, India, by virtue of its

constitutional framework, accords this power a higher pedestal.

The constitutional provision for contempt is not subordinate to

Parliamentary Legislation; rather, it represents an intrinsic aspect

of the judiciary’s autonomy. As a nation rooted in the Rule of Law

and constitutionalism, there is immense faith placed in its

judiciary, so much so that orders of this Court carry a binding force

equivalent to that of Legislative enactments.

11. In this light, we proceed to assess the nature and gravity of

contempt attributed to the First Respondent and other officials of

the DDA. It must be noted at the outset that there appears to be,

across a range of affidavits, an implicit if not express admission

that: (i) no permission had been granted by this Court for the felling

of trees in the Delhi Ridge area, thereby amounting to a non-

compliance of this Court’s order dated 09.05.1996; and (ii) the

omission to disclose, during the hearing on 04.03.2024, that tree

felling had already commenced on 16.02.2024—while the relevant

application remained pending—constitutes wilful disobedience that

palpably obstructed the administration of justice.

Page 33 of 48
12. Needless to say, these very findings and observations have

consistently been recorded by this Court in its various orders

passed during the pendency of this petition over the past year.

Without delving into excessive detail, it is an admitted position that

the First Respondent and officials of the DDA acted in an errant

manner, which not only amounted to a concealment of this Court’s

directions but also led to an unfortunate and avoidable

misconstruction of communications attributed to the LG, thereby

placing him in an embarrassing position. There can thus be no

second opinion but to answer the issue in the affirmative and hold

that there was indeed wilful disobedience on the part of the

Respondents, resulting in contempt of this Court’s orders.

13. As already recapitulated, this Court possesses wide discretion in

matters pertaining to contempt. Given that the First Respondent,

through his affidavits, has conceded that there was a violation of

this Court’s orders tantamount to contempt and has consequently

expressed his willingness to purge it, the question that then arises

is the approach which ought to be adopted by this Court in these

circumstances—whether it should be liberal, magnanimous, or

retributive? In answering this, this Court must be guided not by

vengeance or punitive action but rather by the overarching

objective of upholding the Rule of Law and restoring public

Page 34 of 48
 confidence in the judicial process. The power to punish for

contempt, though wide and constitutionally entrenched, is to be

exercised with circumspection in a manner that serves the ends of

justice rather than merely penalising the individual.

14. Public authorities and public servants are duty-bound to act in the

furtherance of public interest, with every action aligned to subserve

the common good. In adjudicating contempt, the Court must

necessarily consider the nature and degree of contempt. To

instantiate, while public officials may be engaged in the

performance of their duties, if there is even an attempt to exhibit

wilful and deliberate disregard for the orders of this Court, such

conduct would not merely amount to contempt in the narrow sense

defined under Statute. Rather, it has a cascading effect—it fosters

a perception that judicial directives can be defied with impunity.

This cannot be viewed as routine disobedience but must be

recognised as a serious affront to the Rule of Law itself. Such acts

are generally classified as grave and offensive instances of

contempt, warranting appropriate punishment without any

misplaced sympathy or unwarranted magnanimity from the Court.

15. On the contrary, where the Court finds that a breach of its order

amounts to technical contempt, absent any intent to wilfully defy

or disobey its authority, this Court has evolved the practice of

Page 35 of 48
 affording an opportunity to purge such contempt. For example,

where the breach of the Court’s order stems from an act genuinely

intended to serve the larger public interest and undertaken in good

faith, the Court may lean towards magnanimity and provide the

contemnor(s) with an opportunity to purge the contempt.

16. In this backdrop, we deem it appropriate to divide the

contemptuous conduct attributed to the Respondents into two

distinct parts: first, the simpliciter non-compliance of this Court’s

order dated 09.05.1996, which mandated obtaining prior

permission for the felling of trees; and second, the deliberate

concealment from this Court of the fact that tree felling had already

commenced. The gravity and degree of contempt must, therefore,

be assessed on a composite evaluation of both these aspects.

17. Even if the first limb of the contempt is assumed to have arisen

from a bona fide misapprehension of the permissions granted, the

second limb is entirely indefensible. The conscious non-disclosure

of material facts before this Court during the course of proceedings

strikes at the very heart of the justice delivery system. It

contaminates the sanctity of judicial proceedings, may cause

irreversible prejudice to the opposite parties, and carries the

potential to result in erroneous precedents being laid down.

Page 36 of 48
18. We are thus left with no hesitation in holding that the Respondents’

conduct has been gravely contumacious, and when viewed

cumulatively, their actions amount to a blatant obstruction of the

administration of justice. These acts, in our considered view, fall

squarely within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under

Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

19. Having said that, it must be emphasised that while the

misadventure undertaken by the errant officials of the DDA was in

clear and flagrant contravention of this Court’s orders, the

underlying objective—namely, to facilitate improved access

through broader approach roads for CAPFIMS and other public

institutions—appears, does not seem to be in bad faith and

certainly not to defy the authority of this Court. The Court is

conscious of the distinction between mala fide abuse of power and

genuine administrative misjudgement, and we are inclined to deem

that the present instance falls within the latter category.

20. We say so because, as a Constitutional Court, it often becomes our

solemn duty to incline towards decisions that, in the long run,

subserve the larger public interest. In a scenario such as the

present, where competing claims of public interest are at play—

some capable of being fulfilled and others falling short of

expectations—this Court is guided in its adjudication by the

Page 37 of 48
 principles of constitutional morality. Our decision in such

circumstances ought to be grounded in the constitutional values of

equality, social justice, and economic justice, which lie at the very

nucleus of our Constitution.

21. To provide extrapolation, we have duly considered the relevance of

CAPFIMS as an institution, which was established primarily as a

tertiary care hospital to cater to the medical needs of personnel

serving in paramilitary forces (such as the Border Security Force,

Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force,

Indo-Tibetan Border Police, and others), who, in the discharge of

their duties to the nation, are frequently exposed to grave risks and

injuries. CAPFIMS seeks to address these exigencies by offering

world-class medical facilities not only to such personnel but also to

their families, pensioners, beneficiaries under the Central

Government Health Scheme, and the general public at large.

22. Such institutions become particularly very pertinent when

personnel are stationed in remote areas, often with no access to

basic communication such as phone connectivity, and their

families—including women, elderly parents, and young children—

reside far away, frequently in circumstances of vulnerability. In

such a context, ensuring access to quality medical care is not a

privilege but an imperative necessity, one that is both essential and

Page 38 of 48
 urgent. The provision of such infrastructure is not merely an

administrative act—it reflects the moral compass of a welfare state

and echoes the principle of parens patriae, whereby the State bears

responsibility for the well-being of those who may not be in a

position to secure it for themselves. This duty extends equally to

the elders, homemakers, and children of the force personnel who

dedicate their lives to serving the nation.

23. Given these noble objectives, it is imperative to recognise the

significance of an institution like CAPFIMS, particularly in the lives

of families of personnel belonging to the lower ranks of the

paramilitary forces. These are the kith and kin of individuals who

routinely place themselves at risk to protect the nation and defend

its borders under extremely harsh conditions. We are of the

considered view that such individuals, who remain largely voiceless

and without representation in proceedings such as the present one,

stand to benefit directly from the construction of an improved

approach road to CAPFIMS. Better road access would enable

emergency vehicles, including ambulances, to reach the facility

swiftly, thereby potentially saving the lives of those who routinely

safeguard ours. In the discharge of our judicial function, this

overarching public interest weighs heavily upon the conscience of

this Court.

Page 39 of 48
24. We are compelled to, however, add that any incidental benefit or

ancillary use of such infrastructure by other institutions or

adjoining residential localities does not, in any manner, dilute or

detract from the primacy of its intended purpose. We must further

clarify that in the event it is found that the development of such a

facility has been undertaken under the ostensible guise of serving

the needs of paramilitary forces, but in actuality is intended to

confer undue benefit upon affluent individuals or private interests,

such actions will be viewed by this Court through an entirely

different lens and with the seriousness they warrant.

25. In spite of that, this Court remains equally cognizant of the clamant

ecological concerns arising from the refractory conduct of the

Respondents. Undeniably, the reckless decimation of a substantial

portion of the Delhi Ridge, carried out without any discernible effort

to mitigate environmental harm, has resulted in an alarming loss

of biodiversity. It must be recognised that a forested area is not

solely a collection of trees—it is a delicate and intricate ecosystem

comprising of mammals, migratory birds, amphibians, critters and

countless other life forms that together inexplicably contribute to

the region’s ecological balance. As has already been reiterated, the

Delhi Ridge functions as the lungs of the city. In light of this, there

is no gainsaying that urgent and sustained measures must be

Page 40 of 48
 taken not only to preserve it but also to restore and enhance its

ecological vitality.

26. That being so, having holistically considered the matter from

multiple dimensions, this Court finds itself confronted with a

difficult juxtaposition—between the imperative of much-needed

development and improved access to medical facilities on the one

hand and the undeniable and pervasive harm caused to the

environment on the other. In this vein, we must remain mindful

that the establishment of CAPFIMS, the felling of trees, and the

construction of approach roads are now fait accompli. While it may

be theoretically possible to contemplate a reversal of these actions,

such a course is practically untenable. In our view, the die is cast,

and what is done cannot now be undone—any refusal to put

institutions like CAPFIMS to optimal use or to undo road

construction at this stage risks not only undermining public

interest but also squandering significant public resources.

27. However, that by no means can connote that this Court has its

hands tied and is entirely powerless when affronted with such

issues. We have taken the liberty of meticulously scrutinising the

reports submitted by the Committee and the FSI, which set out in

detail the extent of environmental degradation and the

corresponding remedial measures recommended. In this respect,

Page 41 of 48
 we are sanguine that the long arms of justice can be equipped

towards issuing directions aimed at not only purging the contempt

but also advancing the broader objective of strengthening

environmental safeguards and restorative efforts.

E. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

28. In light of the aforesaid analysis, we dispose of these Contempt

Petitions, discharge the rule nisi and issue the following directions:

i. In light of the extensive ecological damage caused, urgent and

time-bound remedial measures must be undertaken by the

DDA in coordination with the GNCTD. These efforts shall be

guided and overseen by the Committee constituted by this

Court and comprising of Shri Ishwar Singh, Shri Sunil Limaye

and Shri Pradip Krishen. The following directions are issued to

be complied with strictly within a period of three (3) months:

a. The DDA is directed to arrange the visit of the Committee

to see the suitability of the 185 acres of land identified and

proposed to be used towards compensatory afforestation;

b. If the Committee opines that such land can be utilised for

the purposes of afforestation, it may then, with the

assistance of other domain experts, initiate the process of

selection or shortlisting of appropriate native species, the

Page 42 of 48
 methodology of plantation, survival rate monitoring, and

post-plantation maintenance and care;

c. The Committee may commence the afforestation exercise

by formulating a plan that ensures the plantation of trees

is undertaken in a manner that optimally maximises the

ecological advantage of the impending monsoon season.

ii. In order to ensure strict and effective enforcement of (i) above,

the Forest Department shall work under the supervision of the

Committee, for which, the entire expenditure is to be borne by

the DDA and disbursed to the Forest Department. The Forest

Department is directed to strictly abide by the directions

issued by the Committee and will be responsible for

maintaining detailed records of the health, survival, and

mortality rates of the saplings planted.

iii. In furtherance thereof, the DDA and the Forest Department

shall submit a jointly signed bi-annual compliance report

before this Court, duly supported by photographic and video

documentation, clearly evidencing the status and upkeep of

the afforested areas. The veracity of such report shall be cross-

checked by this Committee. The directions enumerated in (i)

to (iii) are also applicable to the afforestation efforts already

claimed to have been undertaken by the DDA;

Page 43 of 48
iv. The DDA, in conjunction with the GNCTD and the Forest

Department, are further directed to implement in full earnest

the comprehensive measures recommended by the Court-

appointed Committee in its final report, aimed at enhancing

and restoring the green cover within the National Capital

Territory of Delhi. These measures shall be treated as binding

and implemented under the supervision of the Committee,

with periodic progress reports filed before this Court;

v. The directions contained in (i) to (iii) shall equally apply to I.A.

No. 98622/2024 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995, which involves the

diversion of 6,200 square metres of Morphological Ridge land

located at Plot No. 11B Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Accordingly,

the DDA, in conjunction with the Forest Department, is

directed to identify an appropriate parcel of land and report the

same to the Committee to ensure effective compliance and

implementation of these directions;

vi. The DDA is further directed to ensure the expeditious

completion of the approach roads as envisaged, keeping in

mind that the construction was at varying stages of progress

prior to the cessation of work. The Committee, in this context,

may also explore the possibility of implementing a thick

Page 44 of 48
 coverage of healthy trees on both sides, in congruence with

such road construction;

vii. In view of the concerns raised regarding the potential undue

benefit accruing to certain affluent residential owners from the

construction of the approach roads, the GNCTD, in

consultation with DDA, is directed to undertake a due

identification exercise of such beneficiaries. Upon such

identification, the GNCTD, along with DDA, shall be at liberty

to impose a one-time levy, commensurate with the

proportionate cost of construction, on such affluent

individuals who may be the direct beneficiaries of the newly

constructed road. Such a fee shall, however, be levied in

accordance with principles of natural justice;

viii. Since the First Respondent was not an officer in the DDA cadre

and is no longer holding any position in that organisation, we

deem it appropriate to close the proceedings qua him. However,

all other Respondents and officials of DDA found responsible

by the internal inquiry for the acts leading to the present

contempt are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25000 each as

an environmental fee with the Forest Department, in addition

to and without any prejudice to the departmental action that

may be taken against them. This sum can be utilised towards

Page 45 of 48
 the remedial measures sought to be undertaken, as the

Committee deems fit. Additionally, we direct that a formal

penalty of censure be imposed upon all such officials.

Accordingly, the contempt proceedings against the

Respondents are closed;

ix. The departmental proceedings initiated against the erring DDA

officials, if pending, shall be concluded expeditiously and in

any event no later than six months; and

x. Similar contempt petitions or proceedings pending before the

Delhi High Court in relation to the same cause of action also

stand disposed of.

29. Accordingly, I.A. No. 98622/2024 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995 stands

disposed of in the above terms. All other pending IAs also stand

disposed of.

30. In conclusion, we place on record our sincere appreciation for the

invaluable assistance rendered by the Committee. The diligence,

expertise, and constructive suggestions tendered in their reports

have been instrumental in guiding the Court towards a balanced

resolution of the complex issues arising in the instant matter.

31. We also deem it appropriate to appreciate the valuable assistance

rendered by the Learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court—

Page 46 of 48
 Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, and Mr. A.D.N. Rao,

Learned Senior Counsels.

32. As an epilogue to this chronicle, we must state that the instant

matter is yet another classic case of institutional missteps and

administrative overreach. The facts before us reveal a troubling

pattern: permissions not obtained, court orders ignored, and

environmental degradation inflicted with impunity. Such actions

certainly raise fundamental concerns about governance and

accountability. We truly hope that these proceedings have been

conducive to incorporating necessary course corrections by the

DDA and other bodies so as to avoid any such lapses in the future.

33. Insofar as this Court has taken a view in the present instance, it

must be unequivocally stated that any recurrence of such conduct

will not be met with similar indulgence. It is only the overwhelming

public interest served by the establishment of CAPFIMS that has,

in effect, overshadowed the sheer administrative incompetence and

blatant disregard for both established procedures and the orders of

this Court. It is the good fortune of the concerned DDA officials that

this larger objective has weighed in their favour, without which this

Court may have been compelled to adopt a far more stringent

approach and deal with an iron fist. Accordingly, we deem it

appropriate to also direct the DDA that henceforth, every

Page 47 of 48
 notification or order relating to afforestation, road construction,

tree felling, or any activity with potential ecological impact must

explicitly mention the pendency of relevant proceedings before this

Court. This direction is being issued to ensure that, in future, the

plea of ignorance is not taken as a defence.

34. Be that as it may, the DDA is directed to file a status report upon

completion of the directions put forth in (i).

35. Post the matter after the first compliance reports are filed.

36. Ordered accordingly.

.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)

............................................…….........J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;
DATE: 28.05.2025

Page 48 of 48