On Wednesday (24th July), a Supreme Court bench led by Justice BR Gavai halted the contempt proceedings initiated by it against the DDA Vice Chairman over an illegal tree felling case. Strikingly, while halting the contempt proceedings, the bench expressed displeasure noting that another bench led by Justice AS Oka took up the same contempt case later. The bench also lamented stating that the other bench didn’t adhere to “judicial proprietary”.
During today’s proceedings, Justice Gavai pointed out that it was his bench that first initiated the contempt proceedings against DDA on 24th April. He noted that it would have been appropriate if Justice Oka-led bench sought clarifications from the Chief Justice of India before initiating contempt proceedings against the DDA on the same cause of action later on 14th May.
Justice Gavai remarked, “The other bench has not adhered to judicial propriety, but we are…the appropriate course for any bench would have been to refer the matter to the CJI…ultimately, it is the Chief Justice who is the Master of the Roster.”
Subsequently, the three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and KV Viswanathan referred the matter to the CJI for clarification.
The background of the row
It is pertinent to note that Justice Gavai’s bench is dealing with the TN Godavarman case. Under this case, the Supreme Court has been issuing various directions concerning forests across the country since 1995. Whereas, the bench led by Justice Oka is dealing with the MC Mehta batch of cases that specifically relate to the environmental issues of the Delhi-NCR region.
In line with that, the Division bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan has been hearing a suo motu contempt case against DDA Vice Chairman Subhasish Panda for violation of orders passed in the MC Mehta batch of cases.
However, today, another contempt case relating to tree-felling in the Delhi Ridge area was listed before the three-judge bench led by Justice Gavai. In its plea, the DDA sought permission to cut some trees to widen a road to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (CAPFIMS), an exclusive hospital planned for the paramilitary.
Appearing for the petitioners who moved the contempt petitions, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued today that it was not a case of impropriety by the Division Bench. He explained that there were separate applications.
To which, Justice Gavai replied, “I have been hearing it for two years … We do not understand the resistance in placing it before the CJI. We are not allowing (cutting) or hearing on merits. Recording of arguments is not our findings.”
Responding to the senior lawyer’s objections and environmental concerns, Justice Gavai said, “You are not the only nature-lover here. I have also passed (pro-ecology) orders in Pench (national park) etc. We only want judicial propriety. We are not touchy about any matter.”
SC: Let the CJI clarify where the matter will go to. Ld ASG had already informed the other bench.
— Bar & Bench – Live Threads (@lawbarandbench) July 24, 2024
Sankaranarayan: I repeat it does not concern me which bench hears it. Only concerned with the orders. They said they will withdraw the project, see the air pollution in this city…
Further during the proceeding, Justices Gavai-led bench observed, “A situation has arisen wherein on the same cause of action, two contempt proceedings are pending – one on the basis of the notice issued by the bench presided by one of us, Gavai J, and the other on the basis of order passed by Supreme Court judge, Oka J. The learned Amicus informs that the contempt proceedings initiated by the bench presided by Oka J have substantially travelled […] and various orders are passed by the said Bench. 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 vide order dated 24 April 2024 are kept in abeyance”.
The bench added that the contempt proceedings with regard to the felling of trees were first initiated by the bench presided by one of us (Gavai J) vide order dated 24 April 2024. It would have been more appropriate for the other bench to seek clarification from the Hon’ble CJI before initiating contempt proceedings for the same cause of action as to which bench should continue with the said proceedings.
The three-judge Bench then proceeded to refer the matter before CJI DY Chandrachud to avoid conflicting orders.
