Contempt proceedings before two benches on tree-felling Don't want conflicting orders says SC

    New Delhi, Jul 24 (PTI) Taking note of two separate contempt proceedings pending before different benches over felling of trees in Delhi's ridge area, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said it believes in "judicial propriety" and doesn't want any conflicting orders to be passed.
    Maintaining that it would be appropriate if matters pertaining to the ridge are heard by one bench to avoid conflicting orders, the apex court wondered when a bench was already seized of the matter should a subsequent bench have looked into it.
    The ridge is an extension of the Aravalli hill range in Delhi and is a rocky, hilly and forested area. It has been divided into four zones- south, south-central, central and north- for administrative reasons. These four zones make up a total area of around 7,784 hectares.
    A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai noted that though the contempt proceedings with regard to felling of tress were initiated by a bench headed by him on April 24 this year, another bench of the apex court also started contempt proceedings on the issue in May.
    "It would have been more appropriate for the other bench to seek clarification from the Chief Justice of India before initiating the contempt proceedings for the same cause of action as to which bench should continue with the said proceedings…," the bench, also comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, said.
    It directed the registrar (judicial) of the apex court to place the matter before the CJI for an appropriate order.
    The bench said it does not propose to proceed further with the proceedings initiated by it since those before the other bench have already progressed.
    "We don't want any conflicting orders because at least we believe in judicial propriety," Justice Gavai observed.
    The apex court said the contempt proceedings with regard to the felling of tress were first initiated on April 24 this year by a bench presided over by Justice Gavai in the case titled 'In Re : T N Godavarman Thirumulpad'.
    It noted that the Justice Gavai-led bench had on February 8 last year directed that until further orders, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) shall not allot any land in the areas which are under consideration for being notified as a protected area.
    The bench noted it appeared that in parallel proceedings in the case titled 'MC Mehta versus Union of India and others', the DDA had moved an application before a bench presided over by Justice A S Oka seeking permission to cut down trees but the same was rejected in March this year.
    It further noted that later in May, the Justice Oka-led bench also initiated contempt proceedings in the matter.
    Because of that, it said, a situation has arisen where for the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings are pending -- one on the basis of the notice issued by the Justice Gavai-led bench and the other on an order passed by the bench headed by Justice Oka.
    The bench noted the submissions of advocate K Parameshwar, who is assisting it as an amicus curiae in the matter, that contempt proceedings initiated by the Justice Oka-led bench have substantially travelled and various orders have been passed.
    "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 (Justice Gavai) vide order dated April 24, 2024 are kept in abeyance," the bench said.
    It said in order to avoid the prospect of conflicting orders being passed by the two benches, "it is appropriate that the matters pertaining to the ridge area are heard by the same bench".
    "We are not touchy about any matter," Justice Gavai observed, adding, "let the CJI decide".
    When one of the advocates said the contempt proceedings were initiated in separate matters, the bench observed the appropriate course for any bench would have been to refer the matter to the CJI and get the order as to which bench should hear it because, ultimately, "it is the Chief Justice who is the master of the roster".
    "We don't want to say anything. On a question of propriety, when another bench is already seized of the matter, whether the subsequent bench could have looked into it?" the bench said.
    When the lawyer said the same action is a matter of contempt in two separate proceedings, the bench observed, "Maybe... though the other bench has not adhered to judicial propriety…".
    In its February 2023 order, the apex court had noted that the ridge in Delhi acts as a lung, which supplies oxygen to the citizens of the national capital and therefore, the necessity to protect it cannot be undermined.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)