Recently, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for the tree felling in the capital's Ridge area, stating it cannot ignore such "brazen acts" of environmental destruction.

"If authorities are not performing their statutory and constitutional duties, the court has to give a loud signal to all authorities that the environment cannot be damaged in such fashion," a bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.

While hearing a suo motu contempt case against the DDA vice-president, the Supreme Court also proposed a large-scale tree plantation drive in the national capital. This move follows days of an unrelenting heatwave that claimed many lives. The court questioned the DDA on the implementation of a Tree Protection Act and stated it would instruct civic authorities to carry out the tree plantation campaign.

The vacation bench today posed tough questions to the DDA regarding how trees in the Delhi Ridge area were felled despite a Supreme Court order prohibiting tree cutting in the region.

"It is very shocking if the trees were cut despite knowing that it cannot be done without the permission of the Supreme Court," Justice Oka said. He then asked if Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena had asked DDA officials to remove the trees. Mr Saxena is the chairman of the DDA.

"We are dealing with a very serious issue? 1100 trees, you taking it very casually? Ask your officer who issued these directions... is it the chairman? Then we are making him a party," the court asked.

The court observed that the trees were cut following the Lieutenant Governor's visit and questioned the DDA counsel if they were "defending actions by the LG." Justice Oka inquired, "Two documents placed on record indicate the LG directed the tree cutting. How can you run away from this? Are you defending the LG?"

Mahesh Jethmalani, representing DDA vice-chairman Subhasish Panda, questioned whether the Lieutenant Governor had been informed about the Supreme Court order protecting the trees. In response, Justice Oka remarked, "In a lighter vein, I recall that famous Sherlock Holmes story - the secret why the dog did not bark." The judge was alluding to "The Adventure of Silver Blaze," a short story where a dog does not react to a horse theft because it recognizes the thief, implying an inside job.

"We are trying to find out the truth and we expect better assistance from the DDA. We are pained to know what kind of valuable trees have been felled," the court said.

"We need a clear statement of facts from the VC, because if what is indicated in the emails is correct, then the felling of the trees was on the directions by the LG. We expect the DDA to come clean on this aspect," the court said.

"From the affidavit of the DDA vice-chairman, it appears that the entire blame has been shifted on the officers stating that they were responsible for directing the contractors to cut the trees without the permission of the Court," the court noted, issuing contempt notices to these officers.

The Supreme Court also mandated that the DDA must include a clause in all current and future contracts stipulating that tree felling is not permissible without the court's permission.

"We propose to hold a detailed enquiry into the acts of the DDA which resulted in the destruction of several valuable trees and consequentially the destruction of the environment. Such brazen acts in the capital city cannot be lightly brushed aside by this Court. If authorities are not performing their statutory and constitutional duties, the court has to give a loud signal to all authorities that the environment cannot be damaged in such fashion," the court said.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns about the DDA employing serving judicial officers as legal advisors and directed the high court to take action. The court questioned, "How are serving judicial officers working with the DDA as legal advisors? What happens to the independence of the judiciary?" The matter is scheduled for further hearing next Wednesday.