The Supreme Court has directed Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, in his role as chairperson of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), to submit a personal affidavit detailing the measures being taken to hold accountable those responsible for the alleged illegal felling of over 600 trees in the Ridge area, an extension of the Aravallis.

During a contempt hearing against the DDA vice-chairperson and several officials from the authority, as well as the Delhi government, concerning the tree felling, a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that criminal action should be pursued against the officials involved if the DDA chairperson concurs.

In a prior session, the DDA acknowledged that trees had been cut down on forest land in the southern Ridge area to facilitate road widening between Chhatarpur and the South Asian University. The court expressed its dismay at the DDA for failing to disclose this information, noting that tree removal could not occur without proper permission. A different bench had previously characterized the DDA's conduct as a "willful violation of court orders and disobedience to the law," as well as an "interference in the administration of justice."

The bench also requested details regarding Lieutenant Governor Saxena's visit to the area on February 3.

In the recent hearing, the Chief Justice-led bench asked Mr. Saxena to provide a comprehensive affidavit addressing whether he was aware that trees had been cut before an application for permission was submitted to the Supreme Court. The bench requested clarification on any discussions concerning tree-cutting permissions and when he was informed that such approval was necessary.

Emphasizing the importance of preserving the "pristine nature" of the Ridge, the bench requested that the affidavit outline the actions taken against officials who failed to adhere to established procedures. The court inquired whether criminal prosecution would be pursued against these officials and indicated that if the answer is affirmative, such actions should be initiated without awaiting further orders from the court.

Highlighting the need to establish accountability, the bench also insisted that the affidavit include information on what actions had been taken against officials for deliberately concealing the fact that tree removal occurred before the application was submitted, without notice during the order's passage on March 4.

Additionally, the bench sought information regarding the disposition of the timber from the felled trees and the steps being undertaken for the area's restoration.