New Delhi:A bench presided by Supreme Court judge Justice B R Gavai expressed its displeasure regarding another bench presided by Justice A S Oka also proceeding with contempt proceedings against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in relation to tree felling on the approach road to the under-construction Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences in southwest Delhi’s ridge area.
Justice Gavai, who is in line to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in May 2025, said the other bench "has not adhered to judicial propriety", against the backdrop that the bench led by him was already seized of the matter.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the DDA Vice-Chairman, contended before the bench that the institute in the ridge area was established after favourable conclusions from the apex court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the court itself.
The bench, also comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K V Viswanathan, said the situation has arisen wherein the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings are pending: one before a bench led by Justice Gavai and the other bench led by Justice Oka.
The amicus curiae in the matter informed the bench that the contempt proceedings initiated by another bench has substantially travelled and orders have been passed. "In that view of the matter, to avoid conflicting orders, we find it appropriate that contempt proceedings initiated by the bench presided by one of us by order dated April 24, are kept in abeyance….," said the bench. At this juncture, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing parties challenging the DDA's actions, opposed submissions made by Singh.
Justice Gavai said that "on question propriety when another bench is already seized of the matter", whether another bench could have looked into it. Sankaranarayanan tried to clarify that DDA’s action is in contempt of two separate proceedings, in the T N Godavarman and the M C Mehta matters, and both are connected with environmental issues.
Justice Gavai said it is the same cause of action. The apex court was informed that DDA had made a statement before another bench led by Justice Oka that they are not going to widen the road and they are going to restore it completely.
"Though the other bench has not adhered to judicial propriety, we are doing so...," said Justice Gavai, and also questioned, when for the same cause of action for felling of trees, this court had issued notice, could the other bench have proceeded for that?
The bench referred to the Chief Justice of India the question which court should continue to hear the matter so as to avoid further conflicting orders. “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 because ultimately, it is the Chief Justice who is the master of the roster," said Justice Gavai.
Expressing its discontent, the bench said that a bench presided by Justice Oka went ahead with the contempt proceedings in May this year, even though the bench led by Justice Gavai took up the matter in April. "We could have very well directed that the matter be placed before the CJI and asked the CJI to clarify which bench should proceed further…," said the bench.
The apex court was informed that the approach road, which would also facilitate access to the residential societies for CBI employees, paramilitary forces, and SAARC University, was only 7.5 m wide and needed to be widened to 24 m.
The DDA said that Rs 2,200 crore had already been spent on the institute and on the non-availability of the road the institute cannot be made functional. The inauguration of the institute which was slated to take place in April had been deferred against the backdrop of a legal tussle over the widening of the road.
"We don’t want any conflicting orders because at least we believe in judicial propriety," said Justice Gavai. Singh said the matter is of national interest and added that the contempt proceedings can go on before a bench led by Justice Oka bench. "But in the process, this national interest project should not be lost," said Singh.
Justice Gavai said he had been passing orders for the last two years regarding the protection of the environment in the ridge area.
The bench noted that on April 24, a notice was issued on the contempt plea against the DDA and the authority had also moved the bench by Justice Oka to seek permission to fell the trees but this was rejected on March 4. The bench led by Justice Oka also initiated contempt proceedings on May 14.
"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, as already observed herein above we do not propose to proceed ahead with contempt proceedings initiated by us since the proceedings before another bench has already progressed," said the bench in its order.
