The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Delhi government’s efforts to increase the city’s green cover, describing the actions of the forest department as showing a “complete lack of interest” and a “lacklustre” approach. Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih highlighted the critical nature of environmental conservation in the capital and rebuked the government for not providing a detailed report on its actions.
During the proceedings, the bench directed the principal secretary of the forest department to appear via virtual mode on October 18 and to submit a personal affidavit by October 15 detailing the steps already taken and future plans to enhance Delhi’s greenery. This directive came after the court noted the absence of a comprehensive response from the department, despite previous orders.
The court’s frustration was palpable as it discussed the forest department’s September 21 status report, which it found severely lacking. Additionally, the court took issue with the Delhi government’s advocate, Chirag Shroff, for his statement regarding the filing of a compliance report in a separate, but related, contempt matter which is being heard by another bench. The justices questioned the sincerity of the government’s efforts, suggesting a possible deliberate attempt to divert the matter from their scrutiny.
The ongoing legal proceedings stem from a broader concern about illegal tree felling in the city, as initially brought to the court’s attention through a contempt petition against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Chairperson for the unauthorized cutting of over 1,100 trees in the Ridge area. This contempt case, which also involved the visit of Delhi Lt Governor VK Saxena to the affected area, has since been transferred to a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
In light of these developments, the bench inquired about the progress made since their June 26 order, which required the forest department to convene a meeting with responsible officers and a committee of three experts to discuss measures for enhancing green cover. Despite filings in related cases, there appeared to be little progress in implementing effective environmental strategies.
Amicus curiae in the case, Senior Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, along with Senior Advocate Anita Shenoy, reported that their suggestions for improving greenery—such as soil testing, tree species mapping, and tree audits—had not been acted upon by the forest department. The bench expressed its inability to comprehend the department’s casual approach and warned of serious implications if the directives were not followed.
