In an unprecedented development, two benches of the Supreme Court have concurrently issued contempt notices to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) vice-chairman, Subhasish Panda, for alleged violations of a 1995 court order pertaining to tree felling activities in the southern ridge area.
The notices were issued in response to concerns raised over the construction of an 11-kilometre road from Chhatarpur to the SAARC university, which allegedly involved large-scale felling of trees through the Satbari area. On one front, a bench comprising Justices A S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan entertained a petition filed by Bindu Kapurea, directing the DDA vice-chairman to appear personally before the court on May 14. The bench sought explanations regarding the felling of trees in February within the southern ridge, in purported violation of the Supreme Court’s October 10, 1995 order. Renowned senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi expressed dissatisfaction with the Ridge Management Board’s efficacy, suggesting that its actions were insufficient to safeguard the environmental integrity of the national capital. Rohatgi’s assertion highlighted public disillusionment, with some dubbing the board as a “ridge destruction board.”
Meanwhile, a separate forest bench led by Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta had previously issued a notice to Panda on April 24, in response to concerns raised by amicus curiae K Parameshwar regarding road construction activities. The bench indicated a prima facie finding of contempt, citing DDA’s actions as contrary to the court’s directives. Furthermore, in a related petition filed by the NGO ‘New Delhi Nature Society,’ alleging environmental infringements within the Buddha Jayanti Park, another bench led by Justice Oka issued a contempt notice to CPWD director general Rajesh Kumar Kaushal. The directive was in response to allegations of tree felling, trench digging, and rock breaking activities without the requisite forest and environment clearances. Legal experts view these developments as significant, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to upholding environmental protection measures. The issuance of contempt notices underscores the seriousness with which the court views breaches of environmental regulations, signalling a robust stance against non-compliance with established legal frameworks.
