CJI recuses from Delhi Ridge tree felling in case
The controversy began in July when two different benches, led by justices Gavai and AS Oka respectively, handled separate but related aspects of the contempt case, leading to a judicial standoff
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on Monday recused himself from hearing a petition alleging contempt against Delhi lieutenant governor (L-G) VK Saxena in his capacity as the chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), citing a past association with him during a visit to Bihar jails. The contempt case relates to illegal tree felling in Delhi’s Ridge area.
Heading a bench that also included justice PV Sanjay Kumar, the CJI said: “When I was NALSA (national legal services authority) chairman, I had gone to Patna, and with the Delhi L-G, I toured jails there. So, it will not be appropriate for me to hear a writ in his personal capacity.” The court directed the matter to be listed before another bench for further proceedings.
With CJI Khanna’s recusal, the case will now be heard by a fifth bench in just four months, highlighting its complex trajectory. This contempt petition has already seen a rare confrontation between two Supreme Court benches earlier this year, compelling the then CJI, justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, to intervene to resolve the standoff and centralise the matter under his own bench in August.
The controversy began in July when two different benches, led by justices Bhushan R Gavai and AS Oka respectively, handled separate but related aspects of the contempt case, leading to a judicial standoff. Justice Gavai’s bench raised concerns over judicial propriety, questioning whether justice Oka’s bench should have entertained the matter while a similar issue was pending before the three-judge forest bench led by justice Gavai. Recognising the potential for conflicting orders, justice Chandrachud stepped in as CJI, centralising the matter under his bench, which heard the case last on November 8, the last day in office for the then CJI. The matter then followed the same bench and was listed before the new CJI, who has now said that it be placed before a different bench – the fifth to hear the case.
The contempt petition, filed by Delhi resident Bindu Kapurea, alleges that DDA felled 1,670 trees in the Satbari ridge area of South Delhi in February without the mandatory permission of the Supreme Court. The trees were cut to make way for a road widening project connecting the CAPFIMS multi-specialty hospital in Chhatarpur.
In March, the court rejected DDA’s application seeking retrospective approval for the felling. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the trees had already been cut a month earlier, prompting the petitioner to accuse DDA of flouting court orders. The case also sought to hold senior DDA officials, including the L-G as its chairperson, accountable for the breach.
During earlier hearings, DDA attempted to shift responsibility onto lower-level engineers – a stand frowned on by the court. The court subsequently sought affidavits from L-G Saxena, the DDA chairperson, and former vice-chairperson Subhashish Panda to clarify whether they were aware of the mandatory court permission and when they learned about the unauthorized tree felling.
In his defence, L-G Saxena submitted affidavits citing his lack of knowledge about the tree-felling incident until much later. He stated that he became aware of the court’s requirement for prior approval on March 21 and was informed in June that the trees were felled in February.
This timeline was corroborated by the former DDA vice-chairperson Subhashish Panda, who claimed in his affidavit that he verbally informed the L-G about the incident during an April 12 meeting but did not disclose the specific timing of the felling until June.
Kapurea, represented through senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Manan Verma, however, challenged these claims, pointing out references in the June 10 letter from the DDA vice-chairperson that implied Saxena had been informed as early as April about the unauthorised felling.
The petitioner also cited a study conducted by the Forest Survey of India (FSI) revealed that 1,670 trees were cut, far exceeding initial claims by the DDA and the Delhi government, which estimated the numbers at 642 and 745, respectively.
The Supreme Court’s prior hearings focussed on the ecological damage caused by DDA’s actions, even as it proposed remedial measures, including replanting the felled trees within the ridge and planting an additional 100 saplings for every tree cut. It also suggested appointing environmental experts to monitor the replantation and ensure the saplings’ survival.
During the two hearings of this matter earlier this month, DDA, appearing through senior counsel Maninder Singh and Vikas Singh, sought permission to continue the road project, arguing that the multi-specialty hospital it connects is awaiting inauguration and serves a vital public purpose. However, the bench, led by former CJI Chandrachud, declined to entertain such relief within the contempt proceedings, emphasising the need to focus on accountability and systemic safeguards to prevent future violations.
