GNCTD Not Acted With Swiftness: Supreme Court Directs Constitution Of DRMB As Single-Window Authority For Protection Of Delhi Ridge

The Supreme Court has directed the constitution of Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) as a single-window authority for the protection of Delhi Ridge, which is widely known as the “Green Lungs” of the city.

The Court was called upon to adjudicate on the issue concerning the various bodies/authorities monitoring, regulating, and permitting construction activities in the Delhi Ridge which is an area of vital ecological and geographical significance in the National Capital Territory (NCT).

The two-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed, “It cannot be gainsaid that the effect of non-notification of Ridge as Reserve Forest deprives the said area of any protection. We are, therefore, of the view that without proper statutory protection, it would not be possible to properly preserve the integrity of the Ridge. We find that the GNCTD has not acted with swiftness in protecting the Ridge. Though this court observed as early as in May, 1996 that the Government has not taken proper steps for conservation of the Ridge, not much has been done even after a lapse of almost three decades therefrom.”

The Bench said that without proper identification or preservation of the Ridge, the integrity of the entire ecology would be compromised. It added that the Ridge acts as the green lungs of the city, especially in the present conditions of increased pollution.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar was appointed as an Amicus Curiae assisted by Advocates Mukunda, Kanti, Shreenivas Patil, and Raji Gururaj, while Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) Aishwarya Bhati represented the parties.

Background

The Delhi Ridge which is at the tail end of the Aravali Ranges, contains a variety of flora and fauna and is widely known as the “Green Lungs” of the city. The Aravali Range in the NCT of Delhi comprises of the rocky outcrop stretching from the Delhi University in the North to the NCT Border in the South and beyond, with sizable areas of the same having been designated as the Ridge. However, the Ridge, as it stands today, is not a continuum as various intervening stretches have been urbanized with the passage of time.

The Master Plan for Delhi, 2001 notified in 1990 identified the Delhi Ridge as an area admeasuring 7,777 hectares of land, which was divided in four zones, i.e., Northern, Central, South Central (Mehrauli) and Southern. Though a period of more than three decades has passed, no further proclamation under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has been issued thus far. Since then, only an area to the extent of 103.48 hectares has been notified as Reserved Forests under Section 20 of the Forest Act.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in light of the above background, noted, “This court has continuously been reiterating the importance of Delhi Ridge. The Master Plan notified on 1st August 1990 also stressed on the protection of the Ridge, while this court by order dated 9th May 1996 in M.C. Mehta noted that the Ridge is required to be protected in all its pristine glory.”

The Court was of the view that the entire purpose of the ecological conservation of the Ridge is futile if illegal constructions are coming up throughout the area and the very purpose of the Order passed by the Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985) regarding creation of the DRMB would be frustrated if no steps are taken to contain such rampant encroachments.

“However, there does not appear to be any active steps taken by GNCTD towards securing the Ridge to preserve its sanctity. … the Morphological Ridge is an equally important portion which requires preservation. The stand taken by the DDA in the DRI matter that the Morphological Ridge has no legal backing, requires to be seriously addressed by the Committee appointed by this court by order dated 8th February 2023 in T.N.Godavarman (supra). Though a preliminary report was submitted, the Committee is yet to submit its final report”, it added.

The Court emphasised that the DRMB needs to actively work towards protecting and preserving the Delhi Ridge after its due identification.

“As has been observed by us hereinabove, the DRMB has been acting without any statutory authority. … We are, however, of the considered view that without a statutory backing, it will not be possible for the Board to function effectively”, it said.

The Court observed that if the DRMB is given statutory status, its Orders can be judicially scrutinized either by the NGT (National Green Tribunal) under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 and by the Supreme Court by way of Appeal or by the High Court.

“The very purpose of the earlier orders passed by this court and the present judgment is to avoid having multiple authorities considering the issue with regard to the Delhi Ridge. We, therefore, propose to direct the DRMB to be a single-window authority insofar as issues concerning Delhi Ridge are concerned. Like the CEC, if the DRMB is also given a statutory status, it will be in a position to function effectively and also be accountable and answerable”, it directed.

The Court remarked that rather than the DRMB reporting to the CEC (Central Empowered Committee) every now and then and having two levels of scrutiny, it will be appropriate that a representative of CEC is made a member of the DRMB.

“Since the CEC is continuously assisting this court as far as environmental matters are concerned, the presence of its representative would only add to the strength of the DRMB”, it further said.

The Court also noted that it will be appropriate that the DRMB constitutes a Standing Committee which can look after the day-to-day affairs of the Board.

Court’s Directions and Conclusion

The Court clarified that the Standing Committee must consist of experts and technicians who have worked in the field of conservation.

“… the DRMB should focus on preservation of existing Ridge forests and further improving the areas through scientific conservation measures. The DRMB should also ensure that fragmentation of Ridge Forests is prevented”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the DRMB must work with the sole purpose of preservation and restoration of the Delhi Ridge area.

“We direct the MoEF&CC to constitute the DRMB by issuing notification under Section 3(3) of the EP Act with the membership … The nominees to be appointed by the Chief Secretary, GNCTD and DDA must be experts in the field of conservation”, it directed.

Moreover, the Court explained the functioning of the DRMB as under –

a) The Board shall act as a single-window authority insofar as the Delhi Ridge and the Morphological Ridge is concerned;

b) The Board must ensure the preservation of the Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge in its pristine glory by removing all encroachments and taking all necessary steps to improve the Ridge;

c) The Board must remove all encroachments in the Delhi Ridge as well as the Morphological Ridge;

d) The Board must duly ensure that the identification process of the Morphological Ridge is complete as per Order in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others (2023) and report its compliance, along with comments, if any, to the Court;

e) The Board must ensure the protection, scientific management, ecological restoration of the Ridge and the Morphological Ridge including afforestation and habitat conservation;

f) The Board must submit periodic Reports every six months to the Court regarding the status of the Ridge and the Morphological Ridge and the compliance of the directions of the Court;

g) The Board must act fairly and transparently in discharge of its functions – this would include having a website, provide public notices for hearings in advance, public consultation, and uploading of reports on the website as soon as they are placed before the Court or any other Authority; and

h) All authorities in the territory of the NCT of Delhi must act in aid of the discharge of duties of the Board.

The Court concluded that the Member of the CEC who will officially act as the representative to the DRMB shall report to the Court every three months on proper functioning of the DRMB and the Standing Committee.

Accordingly, the Apex Court issued the necessary directions.

Cause Title- T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1306)

Click here to read/download the Judgment