The Supreme Court has asked Delhi Lieutenant General VK Saxena, in his capacity as the chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), to file a personal affidavit explaining what steps are being taken to fix responsibility for the alleged illegal felling of over 600 trees in the capital's Ridge area, which is an extension of the Aravallis.
Hearing a contempt case against the DDA Vice-Chairperson Subhasish Panda and some officials from the authority as well as the Delhi government over the alleged felling of trees in the Ridge area on Wednesday, a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also said criminal action should be taken against the officers responsible for the tree cutting if the DDA chairperson agrees.
In an earlier hearing, the DDA had admitted that trees were axed on forest land in the southern part of the Ridge in south Delhi to widen a road connecting Chhatarpur with the South Asian University. The court had come down heavily on the authority and asked why this was hidden from it despite knowing that tree-cutting could not be done without permission.
A different bench had termed the DDA's actions "wilful violation of the orders of this court and disobedience to the law" and "interference in the administration of justice".
The bench had also sought details of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) Saxena's visit to the area on February 3.
Affidavit Details
In the hearing on Wednesday, the Chief Justice-led bench asked Mr Saxena to submit a detailed affidavit answering whether he was aware that trees had already been cut before an application for permission was filed in the Supreme Court. It asked the LG to specify whether there had been any discussion about permission for cutting trees and when he was told that the nod was required.
The bench said that since its order requiring permission for cutting of trees was to preserve the "pristine nature" of the Ridge, the LG should explain in his affidavit what action was taken against the officials who have been found guilty of not following the procedure. It also asked him whether criminal prosecution would be initiated against the officials and said that if the answer was yes, it would expect such action to be taken without waiting for its orders.
Stressing on the need for fixing responsibility the bench said that the affidavit should also mention "what action has been taken against the officials for deliberately suppressing the fact before this court that the trees were felled before the application was filed without notice at the time of passing the order on March 4".
Another key piece of information that the bench has sought is what was done with the timber from the trees that were felled and the steps being taken for the restoration of the area.
The court has asked Mr Saxena to submit the affidavit before October 22, which has been set as the next date of hearing.
