'Don't want conflicting orders': SC on contempt proceedings before 2 benches on tree-felling matter
The apex court said that it would be appropriate for a single bench to handle all matters related to the ridge to prevent conflicting orders.
The Supreme Court, taking note of two separate contempt proceedings pending before different benches regarding the felling of trees in Delhi's ridge area, emphasised its commitment to “judicial propriety” and expressed its desire to avoid any conflicting orders.
The apex court said that it would be appropriate for a single bench to handle all matters related to the ridge to prevent conflicting orders and questioned why a second bench addressed the issue when another bench was already dealing with it.
The ridge is an extension of the Aravalli hill range in Delhi and it has been divided into four zones for administrative reasons. All zones make up a total area of around 7,784 hectares.
A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai noted that although contempt proceedings regarding the felling of trees were initiated by a bench led by him on April 24 this year another bench of the apex court also started contempt proceedings on the issue in May.
"It would have been more appropriate for the other bench to seek clarification from the Chief Justice of India before initiating the contempt proceedings for the same cause of action as to which bench should continue with the said proceedings…," the bench, also comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, said.
Read: Haldwani encroachments: SC orders Centre, Uttarakhand to present rehabilitation plans
It directed the judicial registrar of the apex court to present the matter to the CJI for an appropriate order. The bench said it does not plan to continue with the proceedings it started since those before the other bench have already progressed.
"We don't want any conflicting orders because at least we believe in judicial propriety," Justice Gavai observed.
The apex court said the contempt proceedings concerning the felling of the trees were first initiated on April 24 this year by a bench presided over by Justice Gavai in the case titled 'In Re : T N Godavarman Thirumulpad'.
It noted that the Justice Gavai-led bench had on February 8 last year directed that until further orders, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) shall not allot any land in the areas which are under consideration for being notified as a protected area.
The bench noted it appeared that in parallel proceedings in the case titled 'MC Mehta versus Union of India and others', the DDA had moved an application before a bench presided over by Justice A S Oka seeking permission to cut down trees but the same was rejected in March this year.
It further noted that later in May, the Justice Oka-led bench also initiated contempt proceedings in the matter.
Because of that, it said, a situation has arisen where for the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings are pending -- one based on the notice issued by the Justice Gavai-led bench and the other on an order passed by the bench headed by Justice Oka.
The bench noted the submissions of advocate K Parameshwar, who is assisting it as an amicus curiae in the matter, that contempt proceedings initiated by the Justice Oka-led bench have substantially travelled and various orders have been passed.
"In that view of the matter, in order to avoid conflicting orders, we find it appropriate that the contempt proceedings initiated by the bench presided by one of us (Justice Gavai) vide order dated April 24, 2024 are kept in abeyance," the bench said.
"We are not touchy about any matter," Justice Gavai observed, adding, "let the CJI decide".
When one of the advocates said the contempt proceedings were initiated in separate matters, the bench observed the appropriate course for any bench would have been to refer the matter to the CJI and get the order as to which bench should hear it because, ultimately, "it is the Chief Justice who is the master of the roster".
"We don't want to say anything. On a question of propriety, when another bench is already seized of the matter, whether the subsequent bench could have looked into it?" the bench said.
When the lawyer said the same action is a matter of contempt in two separate proceedings, the bench observed, "Maybe... though the other bench has not adhered to judicial propriety…".
In its February 2023 order, the apex court had noted that the ridge in Delhi acts as a lung, which supplies oxygen to the citizens of the national capital and therefore, the necessity to protect it cannot be undermined.
With PTI inputs