In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India

2025 INSC 1306 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

IN RE : DELHI RIDGE

I.A. NO. 117204 OF 2024 (CEC REPORT No. 5 of 2024) in WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995 and Issue regarding order dated 16th April 2025 passed in Writ Petition (c) No. 4677 of 1985

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad … Petitioner

versus

Union of India & Others … Respondents

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………2 History of the Delhi Ridge ..................................................... 3 Importance of the Ridge ........................................................ 6 Morphological Ridge.............................................................. 7 History of DRMB ................................................................. 12 Working of the DRMB ......................................................... 14 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD

Multiple Authorities Supervising Ridge ............................... 16 Date: 2025.11.11 16:51:34 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS …………………………………….21 Status of Final Notification under Section 20 ...................... 22 Removal of Encroachments ................................................. 23 Identification of the Morphological Ridge............................. 23 Reconstitution of the DRMB................................................ 24 Statutory Backing of DRMB ................................................ 25 Representative of CEC in DRMB ......................................... 30 Standing Committee for DRMB ........................................... 31 Functions of the DRMB ...................................................... 33 CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS ……………………………..35

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

INTRODUCTION

1. In the present matter, we are 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 Territory1. 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.

1 For short, “the NCT”.

Page 2 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 History of the Delhi Ridge

2. 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. For example, the Central Ridge area was planned as an

integral part of capital city of New Delhi in the early part of the

twentieth century.

3. The Master Plan for Delhi, 2001 notified on 1st August 1990

identifies the Delhi Ridge as an area admeasuring 7,777

hectares of land, which is divided in four zones, i.e., Northern,

Central, South Central (Mehrauli) and Southern. Over the time,

due to deterioration in the Ridge area, the Lieutenant Governor

of Delhi constituted a 10-member committee known as the

“Lovraj Committee” for preparing a management plan of the

Ridge. The said committee inter alia suggested the creation of a

Ridge Management Supervisory Committee chaired by the Chief

Secretary of Delhi to address land-related legal matters. It was

Page 3 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 suggested that the entire Ridge area be notified as “Reserved

Forest” under the Indian Forest Act, 19272

4. Pursuant to the Lovraj Committee’s Report, a preliminary

notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued on 24th

May 1994 thereby declaring 7,777 hectares of land as Reserved

Forests. The Additional District Magistrate (Revenue)3 was

appointed to be the Forest Settlement Officer under the said

notification. Though a period of more than three decades has

passed, no further proclamation under Section 6 of the Forest

Act 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.

5. One more notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was

also issued on 19th March 1996 for an extent of 7 hectares in

Nanakpura Ridge. A notification dated 2nd April 1996, under

Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 19544 was issued in

compliance with the orders dated 25th January 1996 and 13th

March, 1996 passed by this court in IA No. 18 and 22 in the case

2 Hereinafter referred to as, “the Forest Act”. 3 For short, “ADM (Revenue)”.

4 Hereinafter referred to as, “the Land Reforms Act”.

Page 4 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 of MC Mehta v. Union of India5. The proviso to Section 154 of

the Land Reforms Act concerns uncultivable areas in the Gaon

Sabha which may be excluded from vesting in the Gaon Sabha.

In compliance with the orders of this court, the excess land

measuring 4206.68 hectares from 14 different villages was

placed at the disposal of the Forest Department. This area had

already been identified in the Master Plan which was notified on

1st August 1990.

6. The entire identified portions of the Delhi Ridge are as

under:

Southern Ridge 6,200 hectares Northern Ridge 87 hectares South Central Ridge 626 hectares (Mehrauli) Central Ridge 864 hectares Nanakpura Ridge 7 hectares Total 7,784 hectares

7. As already stated hereinabove, though the total identified

area was 7,784 hectares, the final notification under Section 20 of

the Forest Act has been issued only in respect of 103.48 hectares

of land.

5 Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985.

Page 5 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

8. The Central Empowered Committee6 submitted a Report on

8th May 2024 stating therein that 5% of the Ridge area is under

encroachment, 4% has been diverted and only 1.33% has been

notified under Section 20. The CEC thus recommended that “it is

crucial to comprehensively address all relevant issues by

thoroughly considering every aspect that directly or indirectly

impacts the Ridge.”

Importance of the Ridge

9. 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.Mehta5 noted that the Ridge is required

to be protected in all its pristine glory.

10. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations made

by this court vide aforesaid order dated 9th May 1996:

“The provisions of the Master Plan makes it mandatory that the Ridge is to be kept free from encroachers and its pristine glory must be maintained for all times. It is a pity that neither the Central Government nor the NCT Delhi Administration has ever applied its mind towards maintain the Ridge and River Yamuna which is necessary to maintain the ecological balance of the city.”

6 For short ‘the CEC’

Page 6 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Morphological Ridge

11. Through the years, it has also been noticed that though some

parts of the NCT of Delhi have all the features of the Ridge, they

were not identified as the “Ridge”. In this respect, it will be relevant

to note that when the geological and geomorphological mapping of

1,482 sq. km area of the NCT of Delhi was carried out by the

Geological Survey of India7, it was found that a large area ought to

be included as “residual hills/ridges”. These landforms were found

to have rocky surface and characteristics similar to the Ridge. It

will also be relevant to note that even though these areas are now

identified to be ridge-like, they do not form part of the Ridge areas

under the Master Plan, 2001 or Master Plan, 2021. This area is

now known as the “Morphological Ridge”.

12. It is relevant to note that the High Court of Delhi vide an

order dated 30th November 2011 passed in Ashok Kumar

Tanwar v. Union of India and others8, for the first time held

that areas having characteristics of a “Geological Ridge” though

falling outside the Notified Forest Ridge Land also require

protection. The Delhi High Court in the said case was dealing with

7 For short, “the GSI”.

8 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5733

Page 7 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 a writ petition against the construction by the Border Roads

Organization in the Morphological Ridge. The High Court noted

that permission of the Delhi Ridge Management Board9 or this

court, through the CEC, was required for such a construction. It

will be relevant to refer to the following observations made by the

Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar (supra)8:

“4. It is clear from the aforesaid that the area in question is given the character of a “Geological Ridge” though falling outside the Notified Forest Ridge Land. Even in respect of such a land, clearance from the Ridge Management Board or the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the Central Empowered Committed is to be obtained before carrying out any construction. Such permission is a pre-requisite prerequisite in view of the directions of the Supreme Court. It is also mentioned that for laying of Metro Lines and NHAI for upgradation of NH-236 in the said area, DMRC and NHAI had taken permission of the Ridge Management Board in the non-forest land having morphological features of the Ridge. Admittedly, no such permission is sought by the BRO.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

7. In these circumstances, we restrain the BRO from carrying out any further construction works on the land aforesaid till it obtains necessary clearance from the Ridge Management Board or the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the Central Empowered Committee.”

9 Hereinafter referred to as “the DRMB” or alternatively as “the Board”.

Page 8 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

13. This court also had an occasion to consider the validity of the

above order passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi

Development Authority v. Kenneth Builders & Developers (P)

Ltd10. This court in the said case directed the CEC to investigate

the matter of allotment of lands by the Delhi Development

Authority11 in the Morphological Ridge areas. The CEC submitted

its Report dated 18th November 2015 to this court thereby

recommending that construction on the Morphological Ridge area

must be undertaken only after obtaining the clearance from the

DRMB and after obtaining the permission of this court. It will be

relevant to refer to the following observations of this court:

“22. …..However, a decision was rendered by the Delhi High Court in a case filed by Ashok Kumar Tanwar [WP (C) No. 3339 of 2011 decided on 30-11-2011 [Ashok Kumar Tanwar v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 3339 of 2011, decided on 30-11-2011 (Del)] ] to the effect that a development project on land outside the notified Ridge area but having morphological features conforming to the Ridge would also require clearance from the Ridge Management Board and this Court. Therefore, as far as the present case is concerned though the project land falls outside the Ridge but has morphological features conforming to the Ridge bringing it within the extended

10 (2016) 13 SCC 561 11 For short, “DDA”.

Page 9 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Ridge, the project of DDA involving non-

forestry use of the land could be permitted only after obtaining clearance from the Ridge Management Board and after obtaining the permission of this Court..…”

14. Thereafter, this court has on various occasions considered

the issue with regard to definition and legal sanctity of the

“Morphological Ridge”. When the Directorate of Revenue

Intelligence12 was allotted land in the Morphological Ridge, this

court directed the CEC to examine the issue. The CEC submitted

its Report dated 1st December 2022 thereby recommending that

the project be undertaken only after 5% of the project cost is

deposited in the DRMB Fund. The DDA submitted its reply dated

6th February 2023 stating that the “Morphological Ridge” is

without sanction of law and that the DDA cannot be made liable

to pay. It was further the contention of the DDA that since the

Forest Department has never defined the “Morphological Ridge”

nor has quantified it, there cannot be any legal impediment

against the DDA allotting lands in these areas. This court by an

order dated 8th February 2023 passed in T.N.Godavarman

Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others13 allowed the

12 For short, “DRI”.

13 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1951

Page 10 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 construction by the DRI subject to the terms and conditions as set

out by the CEC in its report. Pertinently, this court found that the

“Morphological Ridge” needs to be identified and, in that respect

appointed a committee for the said purpose. It will be relevant to

note the following observations of this court in the order dated

8th February 2023:

“13. The High Court of Delhi vide order dated 30.11.2011 in Writ Petition No. 3339/2011 (Ashok Kumar Tanwar v. Union of India1,) and this Court in DDA v. Kenneth Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.2 [(2016) 13 SCC 561] has held that land falling outside the demarcation of notified ridge but having similar ‘morphological features’ of ridge should be given same protection as is given to the notified areas and no construction should be permitted thereon. It cannot be doubted that the ridge in Delhi acts as a lung, which supplies oxygen to the citizens of Delhi. The necessity to protect the ridge, therefore, cannot be undermined.

14. It appears that there has been some difficulty in identifying the areas of ridge, which are not notified but also have the same features.

15. We, therefore, find it appropriate that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), appoints a Committee consisting of the following officials/officers, to work out the modalities for identifying the said area which has similar ‘morphological features’ as that of a notified ridge and which needs to be protected as a notified ridge…”

Page 11 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 History of DRMB

15. The DRMB was constituted pursuant to an order dated

29th September 1995 passed by this court in the case of M.C.

Mehta v. Union of India and Others14 making it the primary

authority for the conservation, protection and preservation of the

Ridge.

16. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations made

by this court in the order dated 29th September 1995:

“Pursuant to this Court’s order dated September 1, 1995, affidavits have been filed by Mr. DS Negi, Secretary Environment, Government of Delhi; Mr. DN Sapolia, Deputy Commisioner, Govt of Delhi, Mr. BM Nimesh, L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development and Mr. DP Singh, Director (Horticulture), MCD. The contents of these affidavits have been discussed with the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Addl. Solicitor General stated before us on September 1, 1995 that the Lt. Governor had already taken a decision to constitute a Ridge Management Board. Mr Altaf Ahmad states that the orders in this respect are likely to be issued by the Lt. Governor shortly. Mr. Altaf Ahmad may place a copy of the order constituting the Board before this Court on the next date of hearing. The name of the conservators as members of the said Board may also be indicated.”

14 Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985

Page 12 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

17. By a Government Order dated 6th October 1995, the

Lieutenant Governor of Delhi constituted the DRMB, with the

following members:

i. Chief Secretary, Delhi ii. Vice Chairman, DDA

iii. Secretary, Env. & Forests, Delhi iv. Finance Secretary, Delhi v. Representative of Indian Society of Environmental Management (NGO) vi. Representative of Prakarti – Centre for Environmental Protection & Development (NGO) vii. Conservator of Forests, Delhi (Member and Chief Executive) viii. Dy Conservator of Forests, Delhi

18. The membership and functions of the DRMB were amended

from time to time. Vide Notifications dated 06th October 1995, 30th

April 2013, 3rd July 2017 and 1st March 2021 the Board was

reconstituted time and again.

19. The functions of the DRMB, at present, are as under:

i. Execution of the management scheme for the Ridge Forests as the green lungs of Delhi; ii. Protection of the boundary and boundary fences of the Ridge;

iii. Preparation and execution of detailed plans for upgradation of the Ridge in accordance with sound silvicultural practices applicable to city forests and natural resources;

iv. Control of usage by the public of such areas of the Ridge Forests as may be declared as “open” by the Board;

Page 13 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 v. Ensuring that there are no encroachments in excess of the areas allotted to the lawful allottees till they are shifted from the Ridge Forests under appropriate orders;

vi. Any other functions ancillary to the above purposes.

vii. The Board may coopt for any of its meetings not more than two persons having special knowledge of forestry, regional ecology, nature conservation and related subjects.

20. It is pertinent to note that though there have been a number

of notifications for the constitution of the DRMB, none of them

trace their authority to the Environment (Protection) Act, 198615 or

any other statute. As such, the constitution of the DRMB is only

pursuant to the orders passed by this court and without any

statutory backing.

Working of the DRMB

21. In view of the order dated 7th September 2007 passed by this

court in T.N.Godavarman v. Union of India and others16, all

diversion of forest land is to be preceded by the permission of the

DRMB and also of this court. Such permissions have been granted

subject to deposit of 5% of the estimated project cost with the

DRMB.

15 Hereinafter referred to as, “the EP Act”. 16 (2013) 8 SCC 200

Page 14 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

22. This court has passed orders from time to time thereby

permitting certain activities in the Ridge Areas/Extended Ridge

Areas. A gist of the orders is as follows:

a) 7th September 2007- For construction of bridge over the Neela Hauz water body;

b) 7th December 2007- For construction of Express Metro Link to the Airport;

c) 17th October 2008-For renovation, upgradation and new construction of Dr.Karni Singh Shooting Range, Tughlakabad, Delhi;

d) 18th November 2011- Permission to DMRC;

e) 2nd November 2012- For the construction of transit, training and other infrastructure facilities for the personnel of Border Road Organization;

f) 21st October 2013- For underground tunnelling activity for construction of line 7 corridor in Phase-III of Mass Rapid Transport System project;

g) 10th May 2016- For construction of staff quarters near Naraina Village;

h) 10th November 2016- For construction of a project to Jawaharlal Nehru University;

i) 05th February 2018- For engineered landfill at Tehkhand Okhla on 47.346 acres of land. However, the Court made it clear that for future landfill sites the concerned agencies shall not be allowed to be located in Delhi Ridge area/Ridge Forest/Morphological Ridge area;

j) 22nd March 2018- Permission to NHAI for widening of National Highway and improvement of T-Junction near Dhaula Kuan Metro Station;

Page 15 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

k) 10th April 2018- Permission to Delhi Jal Board for laying of water pipeline;

l) 29th August 2018- For construction of CBI Housing Complex;

m) 26th September 2018- Permission for construction of Flyover and Underpass between Mahipalpur Bypass Road and Airport Road;

n) 8th April 2019- For Referral and Research Army Hospital, Ministry of Defence;

o) 4th November 2019- Permission to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

for laying the underground cables; and

p) 29th November 2021- Phase IV of Mass Rapid Transportation Systems Project.

Multiple Authorities Supervising the Ridge

23. Apart from the DRMB, several other authorities have also

been examining the issues pertaining to the Ridge. For instance,

one Sonya Ghosh approached the National Green Tribunal17 by

way of an OA bearing No. 58/2013 (Sonya Ghosh v. Government

of NCT of Delhi and others18) seeking notification of the Ridge

under Section 20 of the Forest Act. The learned NGT by order

dated 15th January 2021 directed the Chief Secretary to notify the

undisputed area within a period of three months and stated that

there should be an action plan for removal of encroachments. The

17 Hereinafter referred to as, “the NGT”.

18

2021 SCC OnLine NGT 608

Page 16 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 learned NGT also appointed an Oversight Committee to be headed

by the Director General, Forests, Ministry of Environment, Forest

and Climate Change19 with other members, to oversee progress

with regard to removal of encroachments from the Ridge.

24. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of the

learned NGT in Sonya Ghosh (supra)18:

“17. We direct constitution of an Oversight Committee (OC) to be headed by DG Forest, MoEF&CC, Government of India with the Secretaries Revenue and Forest, Delhi Govt., the PCCF, Delhi, the concerned Deputy Commissioners, Delhi and the nominees of Police Commissioner, Delhi and the Forest Survey of India, Dehradun as members. Main function of the OC will be to oversee progress with regard to the removal of encroachments from the Ridge, its protection by way of fencing/boundary wall and preparation of management plan for its restitution. The Committee will be free to co-opt any other authorities/Experts. The Nodal agency will be the PCCF, Delhi for coordination and compliance. First meeting of the Committee may be held within one month and thereafter review may be undertaken periodically preferably at least once in a month till the action plan is executed.”

25. It was noticed by this Court vide an order dated 6th August

2025 passed in the present proceedings that apart from the

19 Hereinafter referred to, as “MoEF&CC”.

Page 17 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 DRMB, numerous other bodies were also constituted by the orders

passed by this court, the High Court of Delhi and the learned NGT

which were also entrusted with the task of monitoring the issue

with regard to Ridge areas.

26. This Court by the said order was referring to the following

different bodies/committees/authorities:

i. Oversight Committee constituted vide order dated 15th

January 2021 passed by the learned NGT in Sonya Ghosh

(supra)18;

ii. Centrally Empowered Committee constituted vide Judgment

dated 30th November 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi

in Ashok Kumar (supra)8;

iii. High-Powered Committee under order dated 8th February 2023

passed by this court in T.N.Godavarman (supra)13.

iv. Committee under order dated 8th February 2023 passed by this

court in T.N.Godavarman (supra)13 to identify the

Morphological Ridge.

27. Noticing that a number of committees were monitoring the

issue with regard to the Delhi Ridge area resulting in duplication

of work, overlap of jurisdiction and even conflicting outcomes, this

Page 18 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 court passed the aforesaid order on 6th August 2025. It will be

appropriate to refer to the following paragraphs of the said order:

“1. We find that insofar as the issues concerning the Delhi Ridge are concerned, several committees are currently monitoring the issues. The authorities are required to seek permission from several committees/Bodies for land diversion, which, at times, results in conflicting orders.

2. We, therefore, direct the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to take all the stake holders on board, including the Government of NCT of Delhi, the CEC and the various Committees/Bodies appointed by this Court or the High Court of Delhi and to come out with a proposal wherein one uniform body can be entrusted with monitoring the issues relating to the Delhi Ridge.”

28. It is further relevant to note that the High Court of Delhi in

the case of Devinder v. Lt. Governor and Others20 was

considering the same issue. The High Court by judgment dated 8th

November 2023 found the Chief Secretary to be prima facie in

contempt of the order dated 15th January 2021 passed by the

learned NGT. In its order dated 15th December 2023, the High

Court observed thus:

20 Writ Petition (C) No. 9965 of 2016

Page 19 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 “3. The affidavit only seems to suggest that action will be taken in the near future but is totally silent as to what action has been taken till day from 08.11.2023, what is the time frame within which the notification will be issued and the time frame within which the encroachment will be removed from the Ridge land.”

29. It appears from the proceedings before the High Court that

when the matter was heard on 8th January 2024, the Government

of NCT of Delhi21 undertook to issue the Notification under Section

20 within four weeks. It will be relevant to refer to the undertaking

recorded by the High Court in its order dated 8th January 2024:

“3. On the other hand, Mr. Satyakam, learned ASC, GNCT of Delhi submits that the steps for such process of issuance of notification has already been initiated, however it is taking some time to complete the same.

4. He seeks and is granted four weeks’ time to ensure that the notification under Section 20 of IFA, 1927 is issued within the same frame of time.”

30. It will also be relevant to note that this court itself was

parallelly hearing the same issue in two separate proceedings i.e.,

the present proceedings and MC Mehta v. Union of India (supra).

Noticing all this, this court passed an order dated 24th July 2024

21 Hereinafter referred to as, “GNCTD”.

Page 20 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 directing the Registrar (Judl.) to place the matter before Hon’ble

the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Special Bench.

Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said order reads thus:

“10. We are of the considered view that, in order to avoid the possibility of conflicting order(s) being passed by two different Benches, it will be appropriate that all the matters pertaining to the Delhi Ridge Area are heard by one Bench.

11. The Registrar(Judl.) is, therefore, directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India seeking appropriate order.”

31. That is how the issue with regard to Delhi Ridge is before us

in the present proceedings.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

32. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel

who is assisting this court as an Amicus Curiae and

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India

at length.

33. Three issues that fall for consideration before this court in

the present proceedings are as under:

i. Issuance of final notification of the Delhi Ridge under Section

20 of the Forest Act;

Page 21 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 ii. Removal of encroachments from the Delhi Ridge and the

Morphological Ridge from at least 9th May 1996; and

iii. The identification of Morphological Ridge.

Status of Final Notification under Section 20

34. The learned NGT vide an order dated 15th January 2021 in

Sonya Ghosh (supra) and the High Court of Delhi by an order

dated 8th January 2024 in Devinder (supra)20 have directed the

GNCTD to issue final notification under Section 20 of the Forest

Act. However, the final notification has not been published yet. In

the Status Report dated 8th August 2024, the GNCTD has stated

that they are still in the process of settlement of rights and that

the joint demarcation of the ridge areas is still underway.

35. 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

Page 22 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 steps for conservation of the Ridge, not much has been done even

after a lapse of almost three decades therefrom.

Removal of Encroachments

36. The CEC and various other authorities have found that the

Ridge Areas are now being rampantly encroached. 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 dated 29th September 1995 passed by this

court in M.C.Mehta (supra)14 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.

Identification of the Morphological Ridge

37. As observed hereinabove, 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

Page 23 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 2023 in T.N.Godavarman (supra)13. Though a preliminary report

was submitted, the Committee is yet to submit its final report.

38. We are, however, of the view that without proper

identification or preservation of the Ridge, the integrity of the

entire ecology would be compromised. The Ridge acts as the green

lungs of the city, especially in the present conditions of increased

pollution. We, therefore, find that the DRMB needs to actively work

towards protecting and preserving the Delhi Ridge after its due

identification.

Reconstitution of the DRMB

39. It will be relevant to note that CEC in its Report dated 8th May

2024 (5th Report of 2024) also found that “the management of

Ridge Land does not seem to be up to the mark.” The said Report

was placed before this court and this court vide order dated 6th

August, 2025 directed the MoEF&CC to take all stakeholders on

board including the GNCTD, the CEC and the various

committees/bodies appointed by this court or the High Court of

Delhi or the learned NGT and to come out with a proposal wherein

one uniform body can be entrusted with monitoring the issues

relating to the Delhi Ridge.

Page 24 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

40. The MoEF&CC has filed its compliance affidavit dated 7th

October 2025 stating that a Ridge Management Board will be

constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, GNCTD

with a total of 12 members. However, it is to be noted that the

proposal does not mention the statutory basis for the DRMB, i.e.,

under what provisions, the DRMB has been constituted.

Statutory Backing of the DRMB

41. As has been observed by us hereinabove, the DRMB has

been acting without any statutory authority. The Original

Notification dated 6th October 1995 was issued only pursuant to

this court’s order dated 29th September 1995 in M.C.Mehta

(supra)14 and that too without any statutory backing for the

Board. We are, however, of the considered view that without a

statutory backing, it will not be possible for the Board to function

effectively.

42. A statutory backing will firstly ensure that the fundamental

principles of administration would directly apply to the Board.

Secondly, a statutory authority working under Section 3(3) of the

EP Act would be subject to the jurisdiction of the NGT under

Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. Thirdly, the accountability and

Page 25 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 transparency required of a statutory body, such as publication

of reports on websites, being subject to the RTI Act22 etc., would

be ensured by the Board being an Authority under Section 3(3)

of the EP Act.

43. We may also note that the CEC was also working as an ad-

hoc body without having any statutory backing until the

MoEF&CC vide Notification dated 5th September 2023 granted

statutory recognition to it upon a judgment passed by this court

thereby deprecating the practice of ad-hoc institutions and

requesting the learned Solicitor General of India to

institutionalize it as an authority under the EP Act. This court

vide judgment and order dated 31st January 2024 passed in

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and

Others23 observed thus:

“20. We find that by virtue of the Notification dated 05.09.2023, our concerns regarding the functioning of the CEC as an ad hoc body and that hereinafter it should be institutionalised as a permanent body have been taken care of. The said Notification provides for the constitution of the CEC, its powers, functions, mandate, members, method of

22 short for ‘Right to Information Act, 2005’ 23 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 86

Page 26 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 appointment, terms of service, and monitoring of its functioning.”

44. It will be relevant to note that this court in the case of

Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and

Another v. Union of India and Another24 has held that the

learned NGT under Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act does not

oust the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 as

the same is part of basic structure of the Constitution. It is

further held that the appeal to this court under Section 22 of the

NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India. In the said case,

the court held thus:

“45. In consequence of the above analysis, our conclusions are:

A. The National Green Tribunal under Section 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. B. The remedy of direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 22 of the NGT Act is intra vires the Constitution of India.”

45. It can thus be seen that if the DRMB is given statutory

status, its orders can be judicially scrutinized either by the

learned NGT under Section 14 of the NGT Act and by this court

24 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 639

Page 27 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 by way of appeal under Section 22 of the said act or by the High

Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

46. In the judgment of this court dated 31st January 2024 in

T.N.Godavarman (supra)23, this court held that environmental

rule of law fosters open, accountable, and transparent decision-

making and participatory governance. It has been held that the

renewed role of constitutional courts will be to undertake judicial

review to ensure that institutions and regulatory bodies comply

with the principles of environmental rule of law. It will be

relevant to note the following observations made by this court in

the said case:

“32. In furtherance of the principles of environmental rule of law, the bodies, authorities, regulators, and executive offices entrusted with environmental duties must function with the following institutional features:

i. The composition, qualifications, tenure, method of appointment and removal of the members of these authorities must be clearly laid down. Further, the appointments must be regularly made to ensure continuity and these bodies must be staffed with persons who have the requisite knowledge, technical expertise, and specialisation to ensure their efficient functioning.

Page 28 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 ii. The authorities and bodies must receive adequate funding and their finances must be certain and clear. iii. The mandate and role of each authority and body must be clearly demarcated so as to avoid overlap and duplication of work and the method for constructive coordination between institutions must be prescribed. iv. The authorities and bodies must notify and make available the rules, regulations, and other guidelines and make them accessible by providing them on the website, including in regional languages, to the extent possible. If the authority or body does not have the power to frame rules or regulations, it may issue comprehensive guidelines in a standardised form and notify them rather than office memoranda.

v. These bodies must clearly lay down the applicable rules and regulations in detail and the procedure for application, consideration, and grant of permissions, consent, and approvals.

vi. The authorities and bodies must notify norms for public hearing, the process of decision-making, prescription of right to appeal, and timelines. vii. These bodies must prescribe the method of accountability by clearly indicating the allocation of duties and responsibilities of their officers. viii. There must be regular and systematic audit of the functioning of these authorities.”

Page 29 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

47. The MoEF&CC has opposed giving statutory status to the

DRMB. It has expressed apprehension that if the Central

Government issues a notification, there will be an overlap of

other authorities. However, we do not find any substance in the

said submission of MoEF&CC. 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.

Representative of the CEC in the DRMB

48. We further find that rather than the DRMB reporting to the

CEC 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. It is only pursuant to the Report of the CEC that the

present litigation has commenced. The CEC has also been integral

to the protection of the Ridge insofar as it has submitted

Page 30 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 numerous reports to this court regarding encroachments and

permissions for construction in the Ridge areas.

49. The MoEF&CC has submitted that a member of the CEC may

be co-opted as and when the DRMB requires. However, it is to be

noted that the CEC is a nodal body appointed by this court to look

after the environmental issues in the country. The CEC has done

yeomen service for the last 3 decades in preserving the

environment by bringing to the notice of this court the

environmental issues which are plaguing the nation. 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.

Standing Committee for DRMB

50. We are also of the considered view that taking into

consideration the constitution of the DRMB, it would not be

possible for it to regularly function on a day-to-day basis. It will,

therefore, be appropriate that the DRMB constitutes a Standing

Committee which can look after the day-to-day affairs of the

Board. We may also take note that for the National Board for

Wildlife, constituted under Section 5A of the Wildlife Protection Act,

Page 31 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 197225, the Hon’ble Prime Minister is the Chairperson. However,

the day-to-day functioning of the National Board for Wildlife is

executed through its Standing Committee which is constituted

under Section 5B of the WP Act.

51. We, however, find that the Standing Committee must consist

of experts and technicians who have worked in the field of

conservation. We further find that for the purpose of preservation

and protection of Delhi Ridge, it is necessary that the Standing

Committee should meet regularly.

52. The MoEF&CC has opposed the proposal for constitution of

a Standing Committee on the ground that under the

Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, DRMB would be able to

ensure the active engagement of all the members. However, it is to

be taken note of that the proposed DRMB consists of senior

officers from various departments and as such, it would not be

practical for the DRMB to meet on a day-to-day basis thereby

necessitating the constitution of a Standing Committee.

25Hereinafter known as, “the WP Act”.

Page 32 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 Functions of the DRMB

53. Having considered the issues with regard to constitution of

the DRMB and the Standing Committee, it is now necessary to

consider as to what will be the functions of the DRMB.

54. The core functions of the DRMB must be directed towards

conservation of the existing Ridge Forests and removal of existing

encroachments from the Ridge. The very purpose of the DRMB is

to preserve the integrity of the Ridge, as a morphological and

ecological feature. Therefore, 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.

55. This court recently in judgment dated 6th March 2024

pronounced in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of

India (In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal)26 has observed thus:

“173. It could thus be seen that, worldwide as well as in our jurisprudence, the law has developed and evolved emphasizing on the restoration of the damaged ecological system. A reversal of environmental damage in

26 (2025) 2 SCC 641

Page 33 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 conformity with the principle under Article 8(f) of the CBD is what is required.

At times, the compensatory afforestation permits forestation at some other site.

However, the principle of restoration of damaged ecosystem would require the States to promote the recovery of threatened species. We are of the considered view that the States would be required to take steps for the identification and effective implementation of active restoration measures that are localized to the particular ecosystem that was damaged. The focus has to be on restoration of the ecosystem as close and similar as possible to the specific one that was damaged.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

175. We find that, bringing the culprits to face the proceedings is a different matter and restoration of the damage already done is a different matter. We are of the considered view that the State cannot run away from its responsibilities to restore the damage done to the forest. The State, apart from preventing such acts in the future, should take immediate steps for restoration of the damage already done; undertake an exercise for determining the valuation of the damage done and recover it from the persons found responsible for causing such a damage.” (emphasis supplied)

56. We are of the considered view that in tune with aforesaid, the

DRMB must work with the sole purpose of preservation and

restoration of the Delhi Ridge area.

Page 34 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

57. We, therefore, pass the following order:

i. We direct the MoEF&CC to constitute the DRMB by issuing

notification under Section 3(3) of the EP Act with the

membership as under:

1. Chief Secretary, GNCT of Delhi, Chairman

2. Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Member

3. Representative of the Director General of Forests &

Special Secretary, MoEF&CC, Government of India, not

below the rank of Inspector General of Forests, Member

4. Representative of the Ministry of Housing and Urban

Affairs, Gol (not below the rank of JS), Member

5. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Member

6. Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council, Member

7. Director General, Central Public Works Department,

Government of India, Member

8. Representative of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi

(not below the rank of Joint Commissioner), Member

Page 35 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

9. Principal Secretary/Secretary (Environment & Forests),

GNCTD, Member

10. Principal Secretary/Secretary (Land Revenue), GNCTD,

Member

11. Two representatives from NGOs and Civil Societies (to

be nominated by GNCT of Delhi), Member

12. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, GNCTD,

Member-Secretary

13. Representative of Central Empowered Committee

(CEC), Member

ii. The DRMB on its constitution would constitute a Standing

Committee as under:

1. Member of the CEC, Chairperson;

2. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, GNCTD;

3. Two Representatives from NGOs and Civil Societies

who are already part of the DRMB;

4. Nominee of the Chief Secretary, GNCTD; and

5. Nominee of the Delhi Development Authority.

The nominees to be appointed by the Chief Secretary, GNCTD and DDA must be experts in the field of conservation.

Page 36 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 iii. The functioning of the DRMB would be 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 dated 8th February, 2023 in T.N. Godavarman

(supra)13 and report its compliance, along with

comments, if any, to this court;

e) The Board must ensure the protection, scientific

management, ecological restoration of the Ridge and

the Morphological Ridge including afforestation and

habitat conservation;

Page 37 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

f) The Board must submit periodic Reports every six

months to this court regarding the status of the Ridge

and the Morphological Ridge and the compliance of

the directions of this 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 this 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.

iv. The Member of the CEC who will officially act as the

representative to the DRMB is directed to report to this court

every three months on proper functioning of the DRMB and

the Standing Committee.

58. Before we part with this judgment, we place on record our

appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG and Mr. K. Parameshwar,

Page 38 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 learned Amicus Curiae ably assisted by Mr. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti,

Mr. Shreenivas Patil and Ms. Raji Gururaj.

.........................CJI (B.R. GAVAI)

……...............................J (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 11, 2025.

Page 39 of 39 Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995