# Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 784
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-28
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bindu-kapurea-v-subhashish-panda-ors-38389
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

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]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,991 of 77,286. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39991 for what follows._

[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 largescale 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.