Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. The majesty of law is supreme and is unequivocally recognised by the Constitution through the conferment of plenary powers of contempt upon this Court. Unlike jurisdictions where contempt is solely governed by statutory law, India, by virtue of its constitutional framework, accords this power a higher pedestal. The constitutional provision for contempt is not subordinate to Parliamentary Legislation; rather, it represents an intrinsic aspect of the judiciary’s autonomy. As a nation rooted in the Rule of Law and constitutionalism, there is immense faith placed in its judiciary, so much so that orders of this Court carry a binding force equivalent to that of Legislative enactments.
11. In this light, we proceed to assess the nature and gravity of contempt attributed to the First Respondent and other officials of the DDA. It must be noted at the outset that there appears to be, across a range of affidavits, an implicit if not express admission that: (i) no 2790 permission had been granted by this Court for the felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge area, thereby amounting to a non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 09.05.1996; and (ii) the omission to disclose, during the hearing on 04.03.2024, that tree felling had already commenced on 16.02.2024—while the relevant application remained pending—constitutes wilful disobedience that palpably obstructed the administration of justice.
12. Needless to say, these very findings and observations have consistently been recorded by this Court in its various orders passed during the pendency of this petition over the past year. Without delving into excessive detail, it is an admitted position that the First Respondent and officials of the DDA acted in an errant manner, which not only amounted to a concealment of this Court’s directions but also led to an unfortunate and avoidable misconstruction of communications attributed to the LG, thereby placing him in an embarrassing position. There can thus be no second opinion but to answer the issue in the affirmative and hold that there was indeed wilful disobedience on the part of the Respondents, resulting in contempt of this Court’s orders.
13. As already recapitulated, this Court possesses wide discretion in matters pertaining to contempt. Given that the First Respondent, through his affidavits, has conceded that there was a violation of this Court’s orders tantamount to contempt and has consequently expressed his willingness to purge it, the question that then arises is the approach which ought to be adopted by this Court in these circumstances—whether it should be liberal, magnanimous, or retributive? In answering this, this Court must be guided not by vengeance or punitive action but rather by the overarching objective of upholding the Rule of Law and restoring public confidence in the judicial process. The power to punish for contempt, though wide and constitutionally entrenched, is to be exercised with circumspection in a manner that serves the ends of justice rather than merely penalising the individual.
14. Public authorities and public servants are duty-bound to act in the furtherance of public interest, with every action aligned to subserve the common good. In adjudicating contempt, the Court must necessarily consider the nature and degree of contempt. To instantiate, while [2025] 5 S.C.R. Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors. public officials may be engaged in the performance of their duties, if there is even an attempt to exhibit wilful and deliberate disregard for the orders of this Court, such conduct would not merely amount to contempt in the narrow sense defined under Statute. Rather, it has a cascading effect—it fosters a perception that judicial directives can be defied with impunity. This cannot be viewed as routine disobedience but must be recognised as a serious affront to the Rule of Law itself. Such acts are generally classified as grave and offensive instances of contempt, warranting appropriate punishment without any misplaced sympathy or unwarranted magnanimity from the Court.
15. On the contrary, where the Court finds that a breach of its order amounts to technical contempt, absent any intent to wilfully defy or disobey its authority, this Court has evolved the practice of affording an opportunity to purge such contempt. For example, where the breach of the Court’s order stems from an act genuinely intended to serve the larger public interest and undertaken in good faith, the Court may lean towards magnanimity and provide the contemnor(s) with an opportunity to purge the contempt.
16. In this backdrop, we deem it appropriate to divide the contemptuous conduct attributed to the Respondents into two distinct parts: first, the simpliciter non-compliance of this Court’s order dated 09.05.1996, which mandated obtaining prior permission for the felling of trees; and second, the deliberate concealment from this Court of the fact that tree felling had already commenced. The gravity and degree of contempt must, therefore, be assessed on a composite evaluation of both these aspects.
17. Even if the first limb of the contempt is assumed to have arisen from a bona fide misapprehension of the permissions granted, the second limb is entirely indefensible. The conscious non-disclosure of material facts before this Court during the course of proceedings strikes at the very heart of the justice delivery system. It contaminates the sanctity of judicial proceedings, may cause irreversible prejudice to the opposite parties, and carries the potential to result in erroneous precedents being laid down.
18. We are thus left with no hesitation in holding that the Respondents’ conduct has been gravely contumacious, and when viewed 2792 cumulatively, their actions amount to a blatant obstruction of the administration of justice. These acts, in our considered view, fall squarely within the ambit of ‘criminal contempt’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
19. Having said that, it must be emphasised that while the misadventure undertaken by the errant officials of the DDA was in clear and flagrant contravention of this Court’s orders, the underlying objective—namely, to facilitate improved access through broader approach roads for CAPFIMS and other public institutions—appears, does not seem to be in bad faith and certainly not to defy the authority of this Court. The Court is conscious of the distinction between mala fide abuse of power and genuine administrative misjudgement, and we are inclined to deem that the present instance falls within the latter category.
20. We say so because, as a Constitutional Court, it often becomes our solemn duty to incline towards decisions that, in the long run, subserve the larger public interest. In a scenario such as the present, where competing claims of public interest are at play—some capable of being fulfilled and others falling short of expectations—this Court is guided in its adjudication by the principles of constitutional morality. Our decision in such circumstances ought to be grounded in the constitutional values of equality, social justice, and economic justice, which lie at the very nucleus of our Constitution.
21. To provide extrapolation, we have duly considered the relevance of CAPFIMS as an institution, which was established primarily as a tertiary care hospital to cater to the medical needs of personnel serving in paramilitary forces (such as the Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, and others), who, in the discharge of their duties to the nation, are frequently exposed to grave risks and injuries. CAPFIMS seeks to address these exigencies by offering world-class medical facilities not only to such personnel but also to their families, pensioners, beneficiaries under the Central Government Health Scheme, and the general public at large.
22. Such institutions become particularly very pertinent when personnel are stationed in remote areas, often with no access to basic communication such as phone connectivity, and their families— [2025] 5 S.C.R. Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors. including women, elderly parents, and young children—reside far away, frequently in circumstances of vulnerability. In such a context, ensuring access to quality medical care is not a privilege but an imperative necessity, one that is both essential and urgent. The provision of such infrastructure is not merely an administrative act—it reflects the moral compass of a welfare state and echoes the principle of parens patriae, whereby the State bears responsibility for the well-being of those who may not be in a position to secure it for themselves. This duty extends equally to the elders, homemakers, and children of the force personnel who dedicate their lives to serving the nation.
23. Given these noble objectives, it is imperative to recognise the significance of an institution like CAPFIMS, particularly in the lives of families of personnel belonging to the lower ranks of the paramilitary forces. These are the kith and kin of individuals who routinely place themselves at risk to protect the nation and defend its borders under extremely harsh conditions. We are of the considered view that such individuals, who remain largely voiceless and without representation in proceedings such as the present one, stand to benefit directly from the construction of an improved approach road to CAPFIMS. Better road access would enable emergency vehicles, including ambulances, to reach the facility swiftly, thereby potentially saving the lives of those who routinely safeguard ours. In the discharge of our judicial function, this overarching public interest weighs heavily upon the conscience of this Court.
24. We are compelled to, however, add that any incidental benefit or ancillary use of such infrastructure by other institutions or adjoining residential localities does not, in any manner, dilute or detract from the primacy of its intended purpose. We must further clarify that in the event it is found that the development of such a facility has been undertaken under the ostensible guise of serving the needs of paramilitary forces, but in actuality is intended to confer undue benefit upon affluent individuals or private interests, such actions will be viewed by this Court through an entirely different lens and with the seriousness they warrant.
25. In spite of that, this Court remains equally cognizant of the clamant ecological concerns arising from the refractory conduct of the 2794 Respondents. Undeniably, the reckless decimation of a substantial portion of the Delhi Ridge, carried out without any discernible effort to mitigate environmental harm, has resulted in an alarming loss of biodiversity. It must be recognised that a forested area is not solely a collection of trees—it is a delicate and intricate ecosystem comprising of mammals, migratory birds, amphibians, critters and countless other life forms that together inexplicably contribute to the region’s ecological balance. As has already been reiterated, the Delhi Ridge functions as the lungs of the city. In light of this, there is no gainsaying that urgent and sustained measures must be taken not only to preserve it but also to restore and enhance its ecological vitality.
26. That being so, having holistically considered the matter from multiple dimensions, this Court finds itself confronted with a difficult juxtaposition—between the imperative of much-needed development and improved access to medical facilities on the one hand and the undeniable and pervasive harm caused to the environment on the other. In this vein, we must remain mindful that the establishment of CAPFIMS, the felling of trees, and the construction of approach roads are now fait accompli. While it may be theoretically possible to contemplate a reversal of these actions, such a course is practically untenable. In our view, the die is cast, and what is done cannot now be undone—any refusal to put institutions like CAPFIMS to optimal use or to undo road construction at this stage risks not only undermining public interest but also squandering significant public resources.
27. However, that by no means can connote that this Court has its hands tied and is entirely powerless when affronted with such issues. We have taken the liberty of meticulously scrutinising the reports submitted by the Committee and the FSI, which set out in detail the extent of environmental degradation and the corresponding remedial measures recommended. In this respect, we are sanguine that the long arms of justice can be equipped towards issuing directions aimed at not only purging the contempt but also advancing the broader objective of strengthening environmental safeguards and restorative efforts. [2025] 5 S.C.R. Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors. Conclusion and directions
28. In light of the aforesaid analysis, we dispose of these Contempt Petitions, discharge the rule nisi and issue the following directions: i. In light of the extensive ecological damage caused, urgent and time-bound remedial measures must be undertaken by the DDA in coordination with the GNCTD. These efforts shall be guided and overseen by the Committee constituted by this Court and comprising of Shri Ishwar Singh, Shri Sunil Limaye and Shri Pradip Krishen. The following directions are issued to be complied with strictly within a period of three (3) months: a. The DDA is directed to arrange the visit of the Committee to see the suitability of the 185 acres of land identified and proposed to be used towards compensatory afforestation; b. If the Committee opines that such land can be utilised for the purposes of afforestation, it may then, with the assistance of other domain experts, initiate the process of selection or shortlisting of appropriate native species, the methodology of plantation, survival rate monitoring, and post-plantation maintenance and care; c. The Committee may commence the afforestation exercise by formulating a plan that ensures the plantation of trees is undertaken in a manner that optimally maximises the ecological advantage of the impending monsoon season. ii. In order to ensure strict and effective enforcement of (i) above, the Forest Department shall work under the supervision of the Committee, for which, the entire expenditure is to be borne by the DDA and disbursed to the Forest Department. The Forest Department is directed to strictly abide by the directions issued by the Committee and will be responsible for maintaining detailed records of the health, survival, and mortality rates of the saplings planted. iii. In furtherance thereof, the DDA and the Forest Department shall submit a jointly signed bi-annual compliance report before this Court, duly supported by photographic and video documentation, clearly evidencing the status and upkeep of the afforested 2796 areas. The veracity of such report shall be cross-checked by this Committee. The directions enumerated in (i) to (iii) are also applicable to the afforestation efforts already claimed to have been undertaken by the DDA; iv. The DDA, in conjunction with the GNCTD and the Forest Department, are further directed to implement in full earnest the comprehensive measures recommended by the Court-appointed Committee in its final report, aimed at enhancing and restoring the green cover within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. These measures shall be treated as binding and implemented under the supervision of the Committee, with periodic progress reports filed before this Court; v. The directions contained in (i) to (iii) shall equally apply to I.A. No. 98622/2024 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995, which involves the diversion of 6,200 square metres of Morphological Ridge land located at Plot No. 11B Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Accordingly, the DDA, in conjunction with the Forest Department, is directed to identify an appropriate parcel of land and report the same to the Committee to ensure effective compliance and implementation of these directions; vi. The DDA is further directed to ensure the expeditious completion of the approach roads as envisaged, keeping in mind that the construction was at varying stages of progress prior to the cessation of work. The Committee, in this context, may also explore the possibility of implementing a thick coverage of healthy trees on both sides, in congruence with such road construction; vii. In view of the concerns raised regarding the potential undue benefit accruing to certain affluent residential owners from the construction of the approach roads, the GNCTD, in consultation with DDA, is directed to undertake a due identification exercise of such beneficiaries. Upon such identification, the GNCTD, along with DDA, shall be at liberty to impose a one-time levy, commensurate with the proportionate cost of construction, on such affluent individuals who may be the direct beneficiaries of the newly constructed road. Such a fee shall, however, be levied in accordance with principles of natural justice; [2025] 5 S.C.R. Bindu Kapurea v. Subhashish Panda & Ors. viii. Since the First Respondent was not an officer in the DDA cadre and is no longer holding any position in that organisation, we deem it appropriate to close the proceedings qua him. However, all other Respondents and officials of DDA found responsible by the internal inquiry for the acts leading to the present contempt are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25000 each as an environmental fee with the Forest Department, in addition to and without any prejudice to the departmental action that may be taken against them. This sum can be utilised towards the remedial measures sought to be undertaken, as the Committee deems fit. Additionally, we direct that a formal penalty of censure be imposed upon all such officials. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings against the Respondents are closed; ix. The departmental proceedings initiated against the erring DDA officials, if pending, shall be concluded expeditiously and in any event no later than six months; and x. Similar contempt petitions or proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court in relation to the same cause of action also stand disposed of.
29. Accordingly, I.A. No. 98622/2024 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995 stands disposed of in the above terms. All other pending IAs also stand disposed of.
30. In conclusion, we place on record our sincere appreciation for the invaluable assistance rendered by the Committee. The diligence, expertise, and constructive suggestions tendered in their reports have been instrumental in guiding the Court towards a balanced resolution of the complex issues arising in the instant matter.
31. We also deem it appropriate to appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by the Learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court— Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, and Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Learned Senior Counsels.
32. As an epilogue to this chronicle, we must state that the instant matter is yet another classic case of institutional missteps and administrative overreach. The facts before us reveal a troubling pattern: permissions not obtained, court orders ignored, and environmental degradation 2798 inflicted with impunity. Such actions certainly raise fundamental concerns about governance and accountability. We truly hope that these proceedings have been conducive to incorporating necessary course corrections by the DDA and other bodies so as to avoid any such lapses in the future.
33. Insofar as this Court has taken a view in the present instance, it must be unequivocally stated that any recurrence of such conduct will not be met with similar indulgence. It is only the overwhelming public interest served by the establishment of CAPFIMS that has, in effect, overshadowed the sheer administrative incompetence and blatant disregard for both established procedures and the orders of this Court. It is the good fortune of the concerned DDA officials that this larger objective has weighed in their favour, without which this Court may have been compelled to adopt a far more stringent approach and deal with an iron fist. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to also direct the DDA that henceforth, every notification or order relating to afforestation, road construction, tree felling, or any activity with potential ecological impact must explicitly mention the pendency of relevant proceedings before this Court. This direction is being issued to ensure that, in future, the plea of ignorance is not taken as a defence.
34. Be that as it may, the DDA is directed to file a status report upon completion of the directions put forth in (i).
35. Post the matter after the first compliance reports are filed.
36. Ordered accordingly. Result of the case: Contempt proceedings closed with directions. IA’s disposed of. †Headnotes prepared by: Aishani Narain, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)