1. Conservation and management of ecological zones — Notification under Section 20, Forest Act — Identification of morphological features — Statutory status of management board. (Para 1 , 4 , 7 , 11 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1916
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
IN RE : DELHI RIDGE
T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others – Respondents
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
Decided On : 11-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
Amicus the Curiae :Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] Mr. Mukunda,Adv. Ms. Kanti,Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil,Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj,Adv. Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (N.P.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr.Adv. (N.P.) Ms. Aprajita Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Siddharth Chowdhury,Adv.
For the parties : Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K Verma, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Deepti Rathi, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
Amicus the Curiae :Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] Mr. Mukunda,Adv. Ms. Kanti,Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil,Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj,Adv. Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv. (N.P.) Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr.Adv. (N.P.) Ms. Aprajita Singh,Sr.Adv. Mr. Siddharth Chowdhury,Adv.
For the parties : Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv. Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K Verma, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Deepti Rathi, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Suhasini Sen, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR
The court ruled that without statutory recognition, the management of the Delhi Ridge is ineffective, necessitating a unified body for its protection and oversight against encroachments.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 3(3) and 20 of the Forest Act, 1927 - Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) - The Delhi Ridge is crucial for ecological balance; encroachments on Ridge areas prompted this intervention. No final notification under Section 20 has been made, affecting the area's protection - Court emphasized the need for a statutory DRMB as a unified authority to oversee all conservation measures regarding the Ridge. (Paras 2, 34, 57)
(B) Management of ecological areas - The Court stressed that preservation requires effective authority; the need for a defined approach to biodiversity conservation and encroachment prevention was highlighted - Compliance and periodic reporting were mandated. (Paras 40, 56)
Facts of the case:
The Delhi Ridge, identified as an ecological asset, has undergone urbanization leading to illegal encroachments on protected areas. The management of the Ridge by multiple authorities has resulted in inefficacies and conflicting orders.
Findings of Court:
The absence of statutory backing for the DRMB is detrimental to effective management; a comprehensive single-window management system is required for effective oversight and conservation.
Issues: The main issues included the issuance of the final notification under the Forest Act, the removal of encroachments, and the identification of morphological Ridge areas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that effective ecological conservation necessitates statutory authority and a consolidated management approach to mitigate issues related to encroachment and environmental degradation.
Result: DRMB to be reconstituted with statutory authority and unified oversight responsibility for Ridge management.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Statutory status of management board — Overlap of authorities — Legal validity of morphological ridge identification. (Para 14 , 40 , 47 , 50 , 52 )
3. Lack of statutory backing hinders effectiveness — Need for single-window authority to prevent conflicting orders — Importance of ecological restoration and transparency. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
4. Environmental regulatory bodies require statutory backing to ensure accountability, transparency, and susceptibility to judicial review under the NGT Act and Constitution. (Para 41 , 42 , 45 , 46 )
5. Constitution of a statutory management board under the EP Act — Establishment of a standing committee — Single-window authority for ecological preservation and encroachment removal. (Para 57 )
6. Why is statutory backing necessary for environmental management boards?
Statutory backing ensures that fundamental principles of administration apply, guarantees accountability and transparency through the RTI Act, and subjects the body's decisions to judicial review by the National Green Tribunal and the High Courts or Supreme Court. (Para 41 , 42 , 45 )
7. What is the legal protection afforded to areas with morphological ridge features?
Areas possessing morphological features conforming to a ridge, even if they fall outside the officially notified forest ridge land, require the same protection as notified areas to maintain ecological integrity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
8. What is the rationale for establishing a single-window authority for ecological zones?
A single-window authority is necessary to prevent the duplication of work, overlap of jurisdiction, and the issuance of conflicting orders that arise when multiple committees monitor the same area. (Para 27 , 47 )
9. What institutional features are required to uphold the environmental rule of law in regulatory bodies?
Bodies must have clearly defined composition and appointment methods, adequate funding, demarcated roles to avoid overlap, accessible rules and guidelines, public hearing norms, and systematic audits of their functioning. (Para 46 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
Table of Contents
| INTRODUCTION |
| History of the Delhi Ridge |
| Importance of the Ridge |
| Morphological Ridge |
| History of DRMB |
| Working of the DRMB |
| Multiple Authorities Supervising Ridge |
| DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| Status of Final Notification under Section 20 |
| Removal of Encroachments |
| Identification of the Morphological Ridge |
| Reconstitution of the DRMB |
| Statutory Backing of DRMB |
| Representative of CEC in DRMB |
| Standing Committee for DRMB |
| Functions of the DRMB |
| CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS |
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[For short, “the NCT”]. 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.
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 suggested that the entire Ridge area be notified as “Reserved Forest” under the Indian FOREST ACT , 19272[Hereinafter referred to as, “the FOREST ACT ”.]
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[For short, “ADM (Revenue)”] 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[Hereinafter referred to as, “the Land Reforms Act”] 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 of MC Mehta v. Union of India , Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985. 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:
