Supreme Court Slams DDA For Contempt In Delhi Ridge Case; Orders Restoration & Penalties

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. K. Singh observed that the case reflected “institutional lapses and administrative overreach,” where statutory permissions were bypassed, court orders flouted, and environmental damage inflicted.

Willful Defiance and Suppression of Facts

The Court divided the conduct of the respondents into two categories: (1) failure to obtain prior permission before commencing tree-felling, and (2) a deliberate suppression of the fact that the tree-felling had already taken place, even while proceedings were pending.

“This conscious non-disclosure strikes at the very heart of the judicial process and carries serious implications,” the Court said, holding that the conduct “squarely falls within the ambit of criminal contempt," the Court said.

While acknowledging that the broader objective behind the project was to facilitate transport access for a paramilitary hospital, a matter of public interest, the Court noted that “access to quality medical care is a necessity, not a privilege,” especially for military personnel and their families, “who often remain voiceless.”

Nonetheless, the Court made clear that “public interest cannot justify contempt of court or environmental degradation.”

Penalties and Institutional Reform

While contempt proceedings were dropped against Respondent No.1(Subhashish Panda) no longer associated with the DDA, the Court imposed an environmental compensation of Rs. 25,000 each on the remaining officials and ordered that a formal censure be issued.

The DDA and GNCTD were directed to implement urgent remedial measures within three months, under the supervision of a Court-appointed Committee.

Key directions include:

Identification of a suitable parcel of land for afforestation, to be reported to the Committee.

1. A one-time levy on the identified beneficiaries of the road widening project, proportionate to construction costs.

2. A joint plan by the DDA and Forest Department to enhance and maintain Delhi’s green cover.

3. Periodic compliance reports to be filed before the Court.

Importantly, the Court directed that henceforth, all government notifications relating to afforestation, road construction, or activities with ecological implications must explicitly disclose any pending Supreme Court proceedings, so that ignorance cannot be pleaded as a defence.

“As a nation founded on the rule of law, immense faith is reposed in the judiciary. Technical violations may be afforded an opportunity to purge contempt, but willful defiance calls for a strict judicial response,” the Bench noted.