Supreme Court Directs Wide-ranging Afforestation, Holds DDA Officials in Contempt for Unauthorised Felling in Delhi Ridge

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh heard a contempt petition and suo motu criminal contempt proceedings arising from alleged wilful disobedience of this Court’s order dated 09.05.1996 in M.C. Mehta concerning protection of the Delhi Ridge. The petition, filed under Article 129 of the Constitution, Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Supreme Court Contempt Rules, challenged large-scale tree felling and earthworks undertaken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for approach roads to CAPFIMS and SAARC University and sought initiation of contempt proceedings against DDA officials.

The Court held that the Respondents’ conduct constituted wilful disobedience amounting to criminal contempt and issued a comprehensive remedial scheme. It found that material facts were suppressed before the Court and that tree felling had proceeded without requisite permissions under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994. The Court appointed a three-member independent Committee (Ishwar Singh, Sunil Limaye and Pradip Krishen) and directed time-bound afforestation, monitoring and remedial measures to restore ecological damage; it also directed departmental action and modest environmental fees from errant officials while closing proceedings against the former Vice‑Chairman of DDA. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court emphasized the constitutional power to punish contempt and that such powers were “integral to preserving the dignity, authority, and effective functioning of the judiciary.”

Background The dispute arose from a long-running series of public interest litigations concerning protection of the Delhi Ridge, including M.C. Mehta (W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985) and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (W.P. (C) No. 202/1995), in which this Court had issued directions preserving the Ridge and mandated prior judicial oversight for any diversion or development. The DDA sought approval for two approach roads traversing notified and morphological Ridge land and applied to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The CEC recommended conditional approval in December 2023, and a Gazette notification of 14.02.2024 purported to exempt the DDA from certain tree-preservation provisions. The DDA then moved an application in M.C. Mehta to fell/transplant 1,051 trees.

Petitioner Bindu Kapurea alleged that DDA commenced clearing and felling from 16.02.2024 without Court or statutory clearances and suppressed that fact at the hearing on 04.03.2024. This Court dismissed the DDA’s interlocutory applications as vague on 04.03.2024 and directed revisiting of proposals; despite that, tree felling continued. The petitioner filed contempt proceedings and the Court issued suo motu notice of criminal contempt on 16.05.2024. The Forest Survey of India later reported approximately 1,670 trees felled and substantial carbon stock loss; DDA affidavits admitted significant felling and proposed remedial measures. The Court observed in its earlier order that “the Ridge is to be kept free from encroachers and its pristine glory must be maintained for all times,” and found that non-disclosure and unauthorised felling amounted to a deliberate obstruction of the administration of justice.

After hearing parties and considering reports from the Court‑appointed Committee and the FSI, the Court directed the DDA to coordinate with the Committee and Forest Department to undertake compensatory afforestation on identified 185 acres, to plant native species, to fund and implement monitoring and maintenance, and to submit bi‑annual compliance reports supported by photographic and video evidence. The DDA was ordered to bear the cost; officials found responsible were censured and directed to deposit Rs. 25,000 each as an environmental fee (without prejudice to departmental proceedings), while the contempt proceedings against the former Vice‑Chairman were closed. The Court required identification of private beneficiaries and authorised a proportionate one‑time levy, and directed completion of departmental inquiries within six months.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 784 (Diary No. 21171/2024) in W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985 Case Title: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Others (Contempt Petition in M.C. Mehta (W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985) with SMC (Crl.) No. 2/2024; I.A. No. 98622/2024 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General of India; Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel (for Lieutenant Governor) Amicus Curiae/Assistance: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Learned Senior Counsels (appointed as Amicus)