Back
Axes New Tree Pruning SOP, Citing Direct Clash with Prior Ruling
In a swift intervention, the
has temporarily halted a 2025 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) by the Delhi government that allowed
"general tending and light pruning"
of tree branches with girth less than 15.7 cm without prior Tree Officer approval. Justice Jasmeet Singh, hearing contempt petition
filed by
Bhavreen Kandhari
against
Vijay Kumar Bidhuri
and others, ruled the SOP undermines a binding 2023 judgment, staying its operation until the next hearing on .
Echoes of a 2023 Verdict: The Battle Over Tree Branches
The dispute traces back to a , decision in Prof. Dr. Sanjeev Bagai & Ors. vs. Department of Environment, Govt. NCT of Delhi & Ors. (W.P(C) 2317/2023). That ruling struck down guidelines permitting pruning of branches up to 15.7 cm girth without specific permission under Sections 8 and 9 of the . The court declared such guidelines "," emphasizing that only Tree Officer approval under could authorize pruning.
Fast forward to : The government issued a new SOP under , reviving the controversial exemption. It stated no permission was needed for branches under 15.7 cm girth (with photo uploads), and public agencies could prune hazard-posing trees regardless of size, merely informing the Tree Officer afterward. This sparked the current contempt petition, alleging the SOP flouts the final 2023 order.
Petitioner's Pruning Critique vs. Respondent's Deferral
Petitioner's counsel, , spotlighted Paragraph 14 of the 2023 judgment:
“Under the Act there is no sanction for the 15.7 cms girth of a tree branch to be cut... The Guidelines... are in conflict with the DPT Act, they are ... the Guidelines permitting regular pruning of branches of trees with girth up to 15.7 cm without specific prior permission of the Tree Officer are hereby set aside.”
He contrasted this with the SOP's provisions, arguing it directly "over-reach[es] the statute." The respondent's counsel, for , sought time to file an affidavit, requesting accommodation without substantive counterarguments on the hearing date.
Why the SOP Fell on Judicial Sword: Statutory Supremacy Prevails
Justice Singh found the SOP's core clauses
"
dated
which has
and is binding on the respondents."
He observed:
"By virtue of the said notification, the respondent is undoing the judgment dated which to my mind cannot be so done."
The court drew a clear line: executive guidelines cannot override statutory mandates or settled judicial precedents. As reported in legal circles, this stay reinforces that permissions bypassing Tree Officer scrutiny under the DPT Act remain invalid, protecting Delhi's green cover from unchecked trimming.
Key Observations - On the 2023 Precedent's Force : “This part of the notification is dated which has and is binding on the respondents.” - SOP's Fatal Flaw : “No permission will be required from the Tree Officer, for general tending and light pruning where branches to be pruned are having girth less than 15.7cm.” (Quoted from stayed SOP) - Irreconcilable Conflict : “The Guidelines... seek to over-reach the statute... permission for pruning... would be... .” (From 2023 judgment) - Executive Overreach Rejected : “By virtue of the said notification, the respondent is undoing the judgment dated which to my mind cannot be so done.”
Stay Ordered: Branches Safe, Affidavit Due in 4 Weeks
The operative order is unequivocal:
"In this view of the matter, the SoP dated permitting as aforesaid shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing... Let the response affidavit be filed... within 4 weeks from today. List on ."
This interim stay preserves the from the 2023 ruling, mandating prior permissions for pruning. Practically, it curbs self-pruning by agencies like , , or on public trees, potentially averting widespread canopy loss in Delhi. Future cases may cite this to challenge similar executive tweaks, underscoring courts' role as guardians of environmental statutes amid urban pressures.
