The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) finds itself embroiled in a contentious legal battle following accusations of concealing facts and irregularities related to the felling of trees at the Ridge in south Delhi. The Supreme Court has taken a stern stance, questioning DDA’s transparency and accountability in the matter.
The alleged illegal felling of over 750 trees to widen a road, a move purportedly approved during a visit by Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena on February 3. Earlier allegations suggested that DDA failed to disclose critical information about Saxena’s visit and the subsequent tree-cutting approvals, prompting the court to demand clarity on the roles of involved officials.
In response to the Supreme Court’s inquiries, DDA’s vice-chairman Subhasish Panda submitted an affidavit detailing an extensive inquiry and record review. The affidavit included documentation such as emails and diary entries indicating Saxena’s visit and directives issued during his inspection at the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) on the said date. However, discrepancies arose when an executive engineer initially confirmed Saxena’s directives in an email, only to retract the statement later. This contradiction raised doubts about the thoroughness of DDA’s internal investigations and prompted the court to express dissatisfaction with the authority’s handling of the case.
The petitioner, represented by advocate Manan Verma, alleged that more than 1,100 trees were felled, exceeding the 633 trees documented by DDA. The Forest Survey of India, while confirming over 750 trees were cut, requested additional time to analyze satellite images for precise verification. The Supreme Court, keen on identifying the individuals responsible for the tree felling, criticized DDA for purportedly shielding higher-ranking officials while blaming lower-level officers. The bench questioned the adequacy of DDA’s investigative efforts and expressed skepticism over the absence of concrete records pertaining to Saxena’s visit and directives.
The ongoing legal proceedings underscore the complexities surrounding environmental governance and regulatory compliance in urban development projects. The court’s scrutiny reflects a broader concern for preserving ecological balance amidst urban expansion, emphasizing the imperative for transparency and accountability in governmental actions.
