Supreme Court of India
BINDU KAPUREAversusSUBHASHISH PANDA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 784
- Decided
- 28 May 2025
- Bench
- SURYA KANT
Holding
The Court held that the respondents' unauthorised tree felling and concealment of material facts amounted to wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court's orders, constituting criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) unauthorised felling of over a thousand trees in the Delhi Ridge and its failure to disclose this during a hearing, despite pending applications for permission. The Court held that these actions amounted to wilful disobedience of its 1996 order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and constituted criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. While acknowledging the public interest in constructing approach roads to the CAPFIMS hospital, the Court emphasized that the contempt was grave and required remedial action. It ordered comprehensive afforestation, monitoring, and financial penalties, and directed the DDA and related agencies to comply within three months. The contempt proceedings were subsequently closed with the Court’s directions, and related pending applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the unauthorised tree felling and construction in the Delhi Ridge without requisite permissions constitute wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order dated 09.05.1996.
- Whether the omission to disclose during a hearing that tree felling had already commenced constitutes wilful disobedience that obstructed the administration of justice.
- If the breach is wilful and deliberate, what remedial and corrective measures must be undertaken to purge the contempt.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Constitution of Indias. Article 129
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. Section 12, s. Section 2(c)
- Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954s. Section 154(vii)
- Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994s. Section 29, s. Section 9(3)
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether unauthorised tree felling and construction in the Delhi Ridge Forest without requisite permissions as directed by the Supreme Court in its orders in M.C. Mehta v. Union of disobedience. Whether the omission to disclose during a hearing that tree felling had already commenced on an earlier date, while the relevant application remained pending, constitutes wilful disobedience that obstructed the administration of justice. If the breach by the Respondents is wilful and
Subjects
ContemptRidge ForestTree fellingEnvironmental governanceRule of lawPublic accountabilityForest clearanceUrban ecologyCompensatory afforestationDirections to purgePublic interestEcological restorationNative speciesAdministrative accountabilityDepartmental actionEnvironmental levyFait accompli
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2764 : 2025 INSC 784
Bindu Kapurea
v.
Subhashish Panda & Ors.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 21171 of 2024
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985
With
SMC (Crl.) No. 02 of 2024)
28 May 2025
[Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether unauthorised tree felling and construction in the Delhi
Ridge Forest without requisite permissions as directed by the
Supreme Court in its orders in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
constitute wilful disobedience.
Whether the omission to disclose during a hearing that tree felling
had already commenced on an earlier date, while the relevant
application remained pending, constitutes wilful disobedience that
obstructed the administration of justice.
If the breach by the Respondents is wilful and deliberate, what are
the remedial and corrective measures that must be undertaken by
them to purge the contempt.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art 129 – Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 – Supreme Court is vested with inherent powers to
punish contempt – Admitted position that no permission had
been granted by the Court for felling of trees in the Delhi
Ridge area – Amounting to non-compliance of Court’s order
dated 09.05.1996 – Omission to disclose during hearing on
04.03.2024 that tree felling had commenced on 16.02.2024,
while the relevant application remained pending – Constitutes
wilful disobedience on part of Respondents – Resulting in
contempt of Court’s orders – Contempt Petition disposed of
with directions.
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2765
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
DDA proposed construction of two approach roads through
the ecologically sensitive Southern Ridge and Morphological
Ridge (3.6 ha) requiring felling of about 1,051 trees – CEC
recommended approval subject to compliance – LG issued
Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2024 granting exemption
under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 – DDA began
felling on 16.02.2024 while I.A. No. 40494/2024 was pending –
Petitioner lodged complaint on 24.02.2024 after witnessing
large-scale tree cutting – During hearing on 04.03.2024, DDA
failed to disclose that tree felling had commenced – Around
1,670 trees ultimately felled without permission:
Held: Non-disclosure and unauthorised felling constitute wilful and
deliberate disobedience – Suppression of material facts during
judicial proceedings amounts to interference with administration
of justice – Conduct falls within ‘criminal contempt’ under Section
2(c), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. [Paras 11–18]
Public Interest – Health Infrastructure and Balance of Equities:
Held: While finding clear contempt, Court undertook a
proportionality analysis – Observed that contempt power must
not be wielded vindictively but in furtherance of justice – Court
considered overriding public purpose: CAPFIMS, a premier
tertiary-care hospital for paramilitary personnel and veterans,
provides life-saving services for forces stationed in remote areas
and their families – Wider roads for emergency access were an
imperative necessity – However, large-scale ecological harm to
Delhi Ridge warranted strict remedial measures – Court held
that though contempt was grave, punitive sanction would harm
public interest and waste public resources since construction
had become fait accompli – Adopted restorative approach:
imposed costs, ordered afforestation and ecological restoration
under independent supervision, mandated periodic compliance,
and directed structural reforms in governance – Case illustrates
judicial balancing between environmental protection and critical
healthcare infrastructure while preserving the majesty of law.
[Paras 19–28, 32, 33]
Case Law Cited
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 4677/1985, Order
dated 09.05.1996; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
India [2024] 1 SCR 1194 : W.P. (C) No. 202/1995 – referred to.
2766 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Constitution of India; Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980; Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Contempt; Ridge Forest; Tree felling; Environmental governance;
Rule of law; Public accountability; Forest clearance; Urban ecology;
Compensatory afforestation; Directions to purge; Compensatory
afforestation; Public interest; Ecological restoration; Native species;
Administrative accountability; Departmental action; Environmental
levy; Fait accompli.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT/CRIMINAL JURISDICTION:
Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 21171 of 2024
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.1996 of the Supreme
Court of India in W.P (C) No. 4677 of 1985
With
SMC (Crl.) No. 2 of 2024 and I.A. No. 98622 of 2024 In Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion.
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Vikas Singh, Maninder Singh, Sr. Advs., Manan Verma, Ms. Manika
Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Gautam Yadav, Atul Kumar, Ms.
Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul Pandey, Harsh Kumar,
Sudipta Singha Roy, Ashutosh Upadhyay, Ms. Diksha Joshi, Geet
Ahuja, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/s. PLR Chambers and Co.,
Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co., M/s.
Lawyer S Knit & Co.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, Mrs.
Archana Pathak Dave, K. M. Nataraj A.S.Gs., B.K. Satija, Shiv
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2767
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
Mangal Sharma, A.A.Gs., Vikas Singh, Maninder Singh, Mrs.
Garima Prashad, Aditya Sondhi, Anupam Lal Das, Sanjay Jain,
Ms. Dr. Monika Gusain, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Advs., Ms. Manika
Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mayank
Pandey, Ms. Misha Kumar, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Ajay Kumar
Pandey, Madhav Sinhal, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Atul Kumar, Ms.
Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kuamri, Rahul Pandey, Harsh Kumar,
Sudipta Singha Roy, Ashutosh Upadhyay, Mrs. Diksha Joshi, Shrey
Kapoor, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Geet Ahuja, Aman Panwar, Abhinav
Kumar, Akash Panwar, Mudit Gupta, Siddhant Buxy, Ms. Anusurya
Salwan, Deepak Goel, Ms. Alka Goyal, Archana Preeti Gupta,
Ms. Bani Dikshit, Rahul Shyam Bhandari, Ms. G Priyadharshni,
Satyam Pathak, Prabhakar Pahepuri, Praveen Swarup, Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary,
Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Kamal
Mohan Gupta, Prashant Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, P.
Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, A.
Venayagam Balan, Sudarsh Menon, Ramesh Babu M. R., Vikrant
Singh Bais, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. Charu Mathur, Ejaz Maqbool,
Rajesh, M/S. Corporate Law Group, Lakshmi Raman Singh, Ms. K.
V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Rajiv Mehta, C. L. Sahu, Rishabh Sahu,
Ms. Hema Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Abha
R. Sharma, Abhishek Chaudhary, B V Deepak, T. N. Singh, T. V.
George, Krishnanand Pandeya, Neeraj Shekhar, Ms. Asha Gopalan
Nair, Rajesh Singh, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla,
Akhileshwar Jha, Varun Varma, Chaman Sharma, Rakesh Vishan,
Ms. Swati Vishan, Javed Raza, Shiva Nanad Sharma, Narendra
Pal Sharma, Ishank Ranjan, Shubham Rajhans, Prakhar Shukla,
Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Ms. Charanjeet Sidhu, Abhisek Sharma,
Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Gopal Singh, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Rathin Das,
Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Himanshu Shekhar,
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Sudhir Kumar Gupta,
A. N. Arora, Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, E. M. S. Anam, Ms.
Sushma Suri, P. V. Yogeswaran, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms.
Malini Poduval, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mrs. Bina
Gupta, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Jai
Prakash Pandey, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Shibashish Misra, Mrs.
Rani Chhabra, , Ms. Divya Roy, Tarun Johri, Radha Shyam Jena,
Ajit Pudussery, K. V. Vijayakumar, M/s. Parekh & Co., M/S. K J
John And Co, V. Balachandran, S. C. Birla, Ram Swarup Sharma,
Ashok Mathur, Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, H. S.
Parihar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P. R. Ramasesh, T. Mahipal, P. N.
2768 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, E. C. Agrawala, Kuldip Singh,
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Rakesh K. Sharma, Rajat Joseph, Gopal
Prasad, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, M/S.
Arputham Aruna And Co, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Raj Kumar Mehta,
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Rajeev Singh,
Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Surya Kant, E. C. Vidya Sagar, M/s.
M. V. Kini & Associates, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, M. Yogesh Kanna,
Vikash Singh, P. S. Sudheer, Sunny Choudhary, Siddhartha Jha,
M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co., N. Naveen, K. Nagan Pillai, Mayank
Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar, , Shovan Mishra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy,
Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Suman Kukrety, Naveen Kumar, P.
K. Manohar, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Rajeev Singh, Ms.
Parul Shukla, Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao, Arun
K. Sinha, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, B. K. Pal, James P. Thomas, S.
Gowthaman, A. Karthik, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Anurag Tandon,
Rahul Khurana, Akshay Amritanshu, Hariom Yaduvanshi, Arjun
Yaduvanshi, Ms. S. Harini, Avi Dhankhar, Vansmani Tripathi,
Ms. Aahana Jaiswal, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay,
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Omanakuttan K. K., Ajit Sharma, Ms. Shalini
Kaul, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Neha Singh,
Siddharth Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Uday Prakash Yadav,
Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanium, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms.
Suhasini Sen, Samir Ali Khan, Sachin Patil, Shubhranshu Padhi,
Nishe Rajen Shonker, Nishit Agrawal, Krishna Ballabh Thakur,
Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms.
Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shishir Deshpande, Yusuf,
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Raghvendra
Kumar, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Anant Mann, Lakshmeesh S.
Kamath, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Kushagra
Sharma, Anuj Agarwal, Akarsh Khare, Shyam Gopal, Ms. Suhasini
Sen, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Harish Pandey, Ms. Indira
Bhakar, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Krishna Kant Dubey, Piyush Beriwal,
Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Shashwat
Parihar, Mukesh K Verma, Vinayak Sharma, Raman Yadav,
Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Dinesh Chandra
Pandey, Saurabh Rajpal, Himinder Lal, Ms. Shruti Jose, Kaushik
Choudhury, Aravindh S., Aman Gautam, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra,
Atul Sharma, Anirudh Sanganeria, Chinmay Deshpande, Shrey
Kapoor , Ms. Anne Mathew, Yash S. Vijay, Abhishek Atrey, Ms.
Mrinal Gopal Elker, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Dhaval Mehrotra, Binay
Kumar Das, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Subhasish Mohanty, Rahul
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2769
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
Jain, Sabarish Subramanian, Naveen Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy,
M/s. D.s.k. Legal, Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Chandra Bhushan Prasad,
Saurabh Rajpal, Amogh Bansal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Pallavi
Langar, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, ,
M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Aor, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Sandeep
Kumar Jha, Milind Kumar, Mohit Paul, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar,
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Akash Mahor, Ms. Ankita
Sharma, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Ms.
Adarsh Nain, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Purnima
Krishna, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Raghav Sharma, Jagdish Chandra
Solanki, Suhasini Sen, Gaurang Bhushan, Dr. Surender Singh
Hooda, Sunil Kumar Verma, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Tanya
Srivastava, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Anando Mukherjee, Ms. Anzu.
K. Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Sujit Kumar
Mishra , Aldanish Rein, Kunal Mimani, Shantanu Kumar, Nishanth
Patil, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra
S. Garia, Karan Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand, Avijit Mani Tripathi,
T.K. Nayak, Deeptakirti Verma, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Ms. Vanshaja
Shukla, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vivek Jain,
Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rani Mishra, Pukhrambam
Ramesh Kumar, Venkata Raghuvamsy D., Ms. Swathi H. Prasad,
Kamlendra Mishra, Somesh Chandra Jha, Ms. Ruchira Goel,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla,
Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Parth Awasthi,
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Tarun Gupta, Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul
Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Shubham Upadhyay.
Applicant-in-person.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed invoking Article 129 of the
Constitution of India, Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
and Rule 3(c) of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for 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.
2770 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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, 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2771
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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.
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
2772 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2773
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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 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
2774 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2775
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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;
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
2776 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2777
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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 authorisation, having been permitted by the LG vide the
Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2024.
2778 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2779
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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 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.
2780 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2781
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
such 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 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
2782 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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. 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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2783
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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
2784 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2785
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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.
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 cause notice by the Delhi High
2786 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2787
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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
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 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
2788 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 measures that
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2789
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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.
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
2790 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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 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
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2791
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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.
18. We are thus left with no hesitation in holding that the Respondents’
conduct has been gravely contumacious, and when viewed
2792 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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—
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2793
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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.
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
2794 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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, 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.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2795
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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
2796 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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;
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 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;
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2797
Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors.
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 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—
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
2798 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
Result of the case: Contempt proceedings closed with directions.
IA’s disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Aishani Narain, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Contempt"Sign in to search