LG role in tree-felling: SC calls out cover up
Supreme Court criticizes Delhi LG for allowing tree felling in ridge area, questions LG's role and Delhi govt's illegal actions, demands compensation scheme.
The Supreme Court on Friday severely criticised Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) VK Saxena for granting permission to fell trees in the Capital’s ridge area despite a prohibition by the top court, and lamented that a relentless “cover-up” and “blame game” was going on over the illegal removal of trees.
A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its strong disapproval of the LG’s role, highlighting a complete “non-application of mind” in the way Saxena purportedly directed the removal of 422 trees following his visit of the area on February 3.
“First date, we should have been told that LG had given directions. But the cover-up went for three subsequent hearings... It is very clear now. The affidavit shows that DDA sought permission of LG. There is complete non-application of mind by LG as well. He presumed that Delhi government has the power of tree officer,” it remarked.
The court questioned if LG Saxena perceived himself as a judicial authority when he directed for clubbing of all cases relating to tree-cutting in Delhi and went ahead to order for the felling in the ridge area.
“LG thinks he is court... It’s a very sorry state of affairs. Why was it not brought to our notice that LG visited the area? He was worried about the delay in the project and he expedited the work for the construction of a road for an officers’ colony,” it remarked.
The court further observed: “LG knows what is the position...Delhi government and DDA know it as well. This cover-up should not have been done and on the first day only, this should have been told.”
It questioned DDA if the LG was informed about the requirement of the Supreme Court’s permission before pruning any tree in the ridge area, and sought a categorical affidavit from the landowning agency whether the trees were felled on Saxena’s direction, or DDA decided to do it on its own.
As senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared on behalf of LG, the court remarked it was contemplating issuance of a notice to Saxena as well. Jethmalani responded that issuance of contempt notice without hearing a party, particularly a constitutional authority, may not be proper but the bench said there is no such legal provision to its knowledge that a prior hearing is to be given before the issuance of a contempt notice. “Which law says that a contemnor has to be heard before issuance of a contempt notice? We are not aware of any such law. Now that you are appearing for LG, we will seek answers from you if we decide to issue a notice,” it told Jethmalani.
Simultaneously, the court pulled up the Delhi government for exercising a “non-existent” power to permit tree-felling. The bench demanded data from the last five years on such permissions, emphasising the necessity for accountability and transparency.
Pointing out the “illegal nature” of the Delhi government’s actions, the bench stated: “The Delhi government must also take the blame of illegally granting permission to cut 422 trees... We will take the Delhi government to task as well. How did you grant permit permission for the transplantation of 422 trees to the user agency. What business did you have to say this? Which law or regulations empower you?” it asked.
While the Delhi government’s lawyer said that its letter to DDA was not construed by the agency as an approval to fell trees, the bench retorted: “Nobody is bothered about trees. This is not a fight between DDA and Delhi government. We don’t want a blame game in this court. We are only concerned about illegal felling of the trees...What troubles is everyone has committed mistakes and they have only been covering up. They should have come to this court and said on the first day that a mistake was committed. It was such a simple matter but it has gone on and on. Everyone has committed mistakes, including the honourable LG.”
The case concerns the illegal felling of 422 trees by DDA in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s previous orders which required prior permission before any tree could be cut. In May, the court initiated a contempt of court case against DDA vice-chairman Subhasish Panda for proceeding with the tree felling without the court’s authorisation. DDA had previously filed an application seeking permission to cut the trees but went ahead with the felling without obtaining the necessary court order.
The court had issued notice to the vice-chairman on a contempt petition filed by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea, who moved the court through advocate Manan Verma, against felling the trees. According to the petitioner, more than 1,000 trees were cut as against 633 mentioned in DDA’s records.
The Supreme bench’s current inquiry into the matter included questioning whether LG was aware that the Supreme Court’s permission was mandatory. The court also issued notice to the contractor responsible for the tree-felling to clarify on whose instructions the work was carried out. Furthermore, the bench highlighted that the tree officer had never granted permission for cutting the 422 trees, highlighting the illegal nature of the actions taken.
During the hearing, the bench noted the involvement of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had approved the tree-felling proposal, apparently without being informed that court permission was required. Stressing the importance of transparent communication and adherence to legal protocols, the bench rued: “Nobody is ready to save the environment. All are here against this.”
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing the Delhi government, was questioned about the government’s willingness to withdraw the tree felling permission. After some back-and-forth, Sondhi confirmed that the government would withdraw the February 14 notification permitting the felling of 422 trees, and proposed planting 100 saplings for every tree that was cut as compensation. The bench, however, demanded a more comprehensive compensation scheme for the environmental damage caused.
“You have caused damage to the environment and you will have to pay. The Delhi government must come out with a scheme now to prevent damage to environment... The Delhi government should also do something on its own. You cannot do charity using someone else’s money. That ₹2.4 crore given to you towards plantation is DDA’s money in lieu of cutting 422 tress,” it remarked.
The court asked the Delhi government to provide a detailed scheme for compensating the environment and to present data regarding the species of trees that were felled in the ridge area.
“We will also see whether LG takes proactive action. More than 1,000 trees have been cut and we realise this is only the tip of the iceberg...All of you will have to come together to create a machinery to ensure authorities are alerted as soon as a tree is cut in the ridge area. And then we will consider how to enhance the green cover,” said the bench, fixing the next hearing on July 31.