Supreme Court: The present case adjudicated on the issue concerning the various bodies/authorities monitoring, regulating and permitting construction activities in the Delhi Ridge, widely known as the “Green Lungs” of the city, an area of vital ecological and geographical significance in the National Capital Territory. The Division Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJ and K. Vinod Chandran, J., directed Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to constitute Delhi Ridge Management Board (‘DRMB’), by issuing notification under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (‘EP Act’). The Court stated that a statutory backing would ensure that the fundamental principles of administration would directly apply to the Board. Like the CEC, if the DRMB is also given a statutory status, it will be able to function effectively and be accountable. Thus, the Court directed DRMB to be a single window authority insofar as issues concerning Delhi Ridge is concerned.
Background
The Master Plan for Delhi, 2001 identifies the Delhi Ridge as an area, which is divided in four zones, i.e., Northern, Central, South Central and Southern. Over the time, due to deterioration in the Ridge area, Lovraj Committee was constituted for preparing a management plan. The said committee suggested the creation of a Ridge Management Supervisory Committee to address land-related legal matters and suggested to notify the entire ridge area as “Reserved Forest” under the Forest Act, 1927 (‘Forest Act’). Thus, pursuant to this, on 24-5-1994, a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued, declaring 7,777 hectares of land as Reserved Forests.
Through the years, it was noticed that though some parts of the NCT of Delhi have all the features of the Ridge, but they were not identified as the ‘Ridge’. These areas are now identified to be ridge-like and known as the “Morphological Ridge”. The Central Empowered Committee (‘CEC’) submitted a Report on 8-5-2024 stating that 5% of the Ridge area is under encroachment, 4% has been diverted and only 1.33% has been notified under Section 20 of Forest Act. Thus, the CEC recommended that it is crucial to address all relevant issues by considering every aspect that directly or indirectly impacts the Ridge.
The DRMB was constituted as a primary authority for the conservation, protection and preservation of the Ridge. Though there have been several notifications for the constitution of the DRMB, none of them trace their authority to EP Act or any other statute. As such, the constitution of the DRMB is without any statutory backing.
The issues for consideration before the Court was:
-
Issuance of final notification of the Delhi Ridge under Section 20 of the Forest Act;
-
Removal of encroachments from the Delhi Ridge and the Morphological Ridge from at least 9-5-1996; and
-
The identification of Morphological Ridge.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that it cannot be denied that the effect of non-notification of Ridge as Reserve Forest deprives the said area of any protection. Without any proper protection, it would not be possible to properly preserve the integrity of the Ridge. The Court stated that 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 DRMB would be frustrated, if no steps are taken to contain such rampant encroachments.
The Court stated that the Morphological Ridge is an equally important portion which requires preservation. The issue that the Morphological Ridge has no legal backing, requires to be seriously addressed by the Committee appointed by this court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1951. The Court stated 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. Therefore, the DRMB needs to actively work towards protecting and preserving the Delhi Ridge.
A. DRMB: Need for Statutory Backing and Standing Committee
The Court stated that a statutory backing would ensure that the fundamental principles of administration would directly apply to the Board. A statutory authority working under Section 3(3) of the EP Act would be subject to the jurisdiction of the NGT. Further, the accountability and transparency required of a statutory body would be ensured. If the DMRB is given statutory status, its orders could be judicially scrutinized either by the NGT, High Court and the present Court.
The Court directed DRMB to be a single window authority insofar as issues concerning Delhi Ridge was concerned. Like the CEC, if the DRMB is also given a statutory status, it will be able to function effectively and be accountable.
Thus, the Court directed Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to constitute DRMB, by issuing notification under Section 3(3) of the EP Act. The Court also provided the membership of the DRMB and stated 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, it would be appropriate to constitute a Standing Committee which can look after the day-to-day affairs. The Standing Committee must consist of experts and technicians who have worked in the field of conservation and for preservation and protection of Delhi Ridge, it is necessary that the Committee should meet regularly. Accordingly, the Court also specified the members that would constitute the Standing Committee.
B. Representative of the CEC in the DRMB
The Court stated that rather than the DRMB reporting to the CEC and having two levels of scrutiny, it would be appropriate that a representative of CEC is made a member of the DRMB. The CEC is a nodal body appointed to look after the environmental issues, and it has done yeomen service for the last 3 decades in preserving the environment. 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.
C. Functions of DRMB
The Court stated that the DRMB shall act as a single-window authority insofar as the Delhi Ridge and the Morphological Ridge is concerned. The DRMB must ensure preservation of Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge in its pristine glory by removing all encroachments and taking all necessary steps to improve the Ridge. The DRMB should also ensure that fragmentation of Ridge Forests is prevented, and the very purpose of the DRMB is to preserve the integrity of the Ridge, as a morphological and ecological feature.
The Court stated that the DRMB must remove all encroachments in the Delhi Ridge and Morphological Ridge and ensure protection, scientific management, ecological restoration of the Ridge and the Morphological Ridge. The DRMB must duly ensure that the identification process of the Morphological Ridge is complete and report its compliance, along with comments, if any, to this court. Further, 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. The Court directed the Member of the CEC who will officially act as the DRMB’s representatives, to report to this court every three months on proper functioning of the DRMB and the Standing Committee.
[T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2386, decided on 11-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice B.R. Gavai
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advocate [A.C.]; Mukunda, Adv.; Kanti, Adv.; Shreenivas Patil, Adv.; Raji Gururaj, Adv.; Harish N. Salve, Sr.Adv. (N.P.); A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. (N.P.); Aprajita Singh, Sr. Adv.; Siddharth Chowdhury, Adv.
For the Respondent: Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.; Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv.; Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR; Suhasini Sen, Adv.; Gaurang Bhushan, Adv.; Baij Nath Patel, Adv.; K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G.; Harish Pandey, Adv.; Indira Bhakar, Adv.; Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv.; Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.; Piyush Beriwal, Adv.; Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv.; Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv.; Shashwat Parihar, Adv.; Mukesh K Verma, Adv.; Vinayak Sharma, Adv.; Santosh Ramdurg, Adv.; Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR; Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.; Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv.; Suhashini Sen, Adv.; Shyam Gopal, Adv.; Raghav Sharma, Adv.; Raman Yadav, Adv.; Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR; Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.; Nishit Agrawal, AOR; Kanishka Mittal, Adv.; Deepti Rathi, Adv.; Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.; Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv.; Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv.; Suhasini Sen, Adv. ; Gaurang Bhushan, Adv.; Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR