It’s Bench vs Bench at Supreme Court over Delhi’s tree-felling case: ‘Judicial propriety not adhered to’

The Bench, also comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V Viswanathan, referred the matter to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, asking  him to decide which Bench should continue to hear the case so as to avoid conflicting orders.

“Though the other Bench has not adhered to judicial propriety, we are doing so… When, for the same cause of action for felling of trees, this court had issued notice, could the other Bench have proceeded for that,” Justice Gavai asked.

On April 24, a two-judge Bench of Justices Gavai and Sandeep Mehta had issued notice to the DDA Vice-Chairman, Subhasish Panda, over the felling of trees for widening the approach road to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS) in Southwest Delhi’s Ridge area.

In May, another Bench of Justices Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan also issued notice to Panda on a plea alleging contempt in the matter. In subsequent hearings, Justice Oka said there was a “cover-up” on what transpired during Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena’s visit to the site in February.

On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Panda, told the Bench presided by Justice Gavai that the road, which would also facilitate access to the CBI’s residential quarters and SAARC University, was only 7.5 metres wide and needed to be widened to 24 metres. He said the inauguration of the CAPFIMS Hospital, on which Rs 2,200 crore was spent, was scheduled for April, but was deferred due to the road widening issue. He also referred to the April 24 contempt notice.

Taking note, Justice Gavai asked how the other Bench could have heard the contempt plea when it had already issued notice in the matter. “The appropriate course for any Bench would have been to refer the matter to the Chief Justice 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,” he said.

Saying that he did not want any conflicting orders, he advised Singh to approach the CJI. “We don’t want any conflicting orders because we, at least, believe in judicial propriety,” he said.

Singh said he had approached the Bench because the matter was already pending before it. He said while the contempt proceedings could go on before Justice Oka’s Bench, “this national interest project should not be lost” in the process.

In its order, Justice Gavai’s Bench noted that it had already issued a notice on April 24 on the contempt plea against DDA. It added that DDA had also moved Justice Oka’s Bench to seek permission to fell the trees but this was rejected, and that Bench had also initiated contempt proceedings in May.

On being told by the amicus curiae that the contempt proceedings before Justice Oka’s Bench “have substantially travelled”, Justice Gavai’s Bench said: “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, by order dated April 24, 2024, are kept in abeyance.”

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who represented petitioners seeking contempt action against the DDA, objected to Singh’s submissions.

“We don’t want to say anything on the question of propriety. When a Bench had already been seized of the matter, how could another Bench have looked into it,” Justice Gavai responded.

Sankaranarayanan sought to clarify that the DDA’s action was in contempt of two separate proceedings, both related to environmental issues.

“Maybe, but then it was the same cause of action,” said Justice Gavai. “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 same proceedings,” his Bench said in its order.

“As already observed here and above, we do not propose to proceed with the contempt proceedings initiated by us since the proceedings before the other Bench have already progressed,” it said. “However, in order to avoid further conflicting orders being passed,” it asked the CJI to clarify which Bench should hear the matter.