New Delhi, May 28 (Reporter) The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials for illegally felling trees in the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge area without obtaining the Court’s permission. The contempt proceedings relate to a road-widening project undertaken to facilitate access to the CAPFIMS Paramilitary Hospital. A bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, held that the conduct of DDA officials amounted to criminal contempt, categorising it as a "classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach." The Court expressed serious concern over the wilful and conscious concealment of the tree-felling from the judiciary. “As a nation rooted in rule of law, there is immense faith placed in the judiciary... When there is wilful disregard, the Court ought to take a strict view,” the bench stated. “The respondents’ conduct has been contemptuous. Their acts fall in the scope of criminal contempt.” The Court noted that the tree-felling had already occurred by the time the matter reached it and said this deliberate non-disclosure “strikes at the heart of the judicial process”. In a bid to prevent similar occurrences in the future, the Court mandated that all notifications or orders related to afforestation, road construction, or any ecologically sensitive activity must clearly mention the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court. This is to ensure that ignorance of legal proceedings is not used as a shield in future violations. The Court closed contempt proceedings against former DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda, who is no longer associated with the authority. However, it imposed an environmental compensation of Rs 25,000 each on other officials, apart from any departmental action that may be taken. The Court also issued a formal censure against them. Acknowledging the significance of the CAPFIMS hospital project for paramilitary personnel, the bench said that while public interest may justify infrastructure needs, it cannot override legal mandates or ecological responsibility. “Ensuring access to quality medical care is not a privilege, but a necessity. These personnel and their families often remain voiceless. Public interest weighs heavily with us,” said Justice Kant. The Court directed the DDA and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to take urgent corrective measures. A Court-constituted committee will oversee this process, including identification of 185 acres of land for compensatory afforestation, framing and implementation of an afforestation plan by the Forest Department under committee supervision, submission of a joint report by DDA and the Forest Department on the upkeep of afforested areas and additional measures to enhance Delhi’s green cover, to be proposed by the committee. The Court further directed that the periodic compliance reports be submitted before it. The Court also instructed the Delhi government to identify the beneficiaries of the road project and impose a one-time levy in proportion to the construction cost. The contempt case arose from parallel proceedings before different benches of the Supreme Court regarding tree-felling in the Delhi Ridge for road construction between Main Chhattarpur Road and the CAPFIMS Hospital. Initially, Justice Abhay S Oka's bench in the M C Mehta case and Justice B R Gavai’s bench (now CJI) in the T N Godavarman matter heard the cases. Justice Oka’s bench had warned of issuing contempt notice to Delhi LG V K Saxena, who also chairs the DDA, based on findings that indicated his possible involvement in the decision. The Court noted that the tree felling appeared to be an attempt to bypass land acquisition hurdles in the Chhattarpur farmhouse area. However, following objections from Justice Gavai’s bench regarding jurisdictional overlaps, all related matters were consolidated under one bench. The final judgment came from the bench led by Justice Surya Kant, which took a fresh view, independent of previous proceedings. The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on January 21 after extensive hearings and submissions by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and other counsel. While acknowledging the illegal felling of trees, the Court stressed that the breach of judicial orders must be addressed firmly to preserve the sanctity of court directions...////...