On July 24, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Gavai, paused contempt proceedings against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Vice Chairman Subhasish Panda over illegal tree felling. This decision came after it was noted that another bench, headed by Justice AS Oka, had also initiated contempt proceedings on the same issue.
Justice Gavai highlighted that his bench had first initiated contempt proceedings against the DDA on April 24, 2024, and asserted that Justice Oka’s bench should have sought clarification from the Chief Justice of India before starting a similar process on May 14, 2024. Justice Gavai emphasized the importance of judicial propriety, noting that it is the Chief Justice who is the Master of the Roster.
Argument
The bench, comprised Justices Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan. They recorded the following in their order: “A situation has arisen wherein on the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings are pending. One on the basis of the notice issued by the bench presided by one of us. Gavai J, and the other on the basis of order passed by Supreme Court judge, Oka J. The learned Amicus informs that the contempt proceedings initiated by the bench presided by Oka J have substantially traveled. Various orders are passed by the said Bench. 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 vide order dated 24 April 2024 are kept in abeyance.”
The case concerns tree-felling in the Delhi Ridge area for a road-widening project. This is related to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS). The DDA had sought court permission to fell trees for this project. But faced contempt notices for violating earlier Supreme Court orders prohibiting tree felling without court approval.
Amicus Curiae K Parmeswar noted that the Central Empowered Committee had reported violations of Supreme Court orders. This is in both the TN Godavarman and MC Mehta cases. He indicated that the DDA did not disclose the relevant orders when seeking permissions in parallel proceedings.
Conclusion
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representded the DDA. He argued that the CAPFIMS hospital project could not proceed without a wider road. Justice Gavai remarked on the need to adhere to judicial procedures and propriety.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, represented the contempt petitioners. He emphasized that the same action was in contempt of two separate proceedings. Thus, leading the bench to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for clarification. The bench stressed that their pause on the proceedings was not a decision on merits. It was a step to maintain judicial propriety and avoid conflicting orders.
