‘Is pretended ignorance of law any excuse?’: Ramesh on LG’s submission to SC on tree felling

PTI, Oct 24, 2024, 10:27 AM IST

With Delhi Lt Governor V K Saxena informing the Supreme Court that he was not made aware of the need for prior permission for felling trees in the Ridge area, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh took a swipe at him on Wednesday and asked if “pretended ignorance of the law any excuse”.

In an affidavit, LG Saxena informed a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud that he learnt about the development only after the trees were felled between February 16 and February 26. The intimation, he said, came via a letter by the DDA vice chairman on June 10.

The LG also said necessary legal action had been initiated against the erring officials of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Tagging a media report on the issue, Ramesh said, “This is extraordinary. Is a pretended ignorance of the law any excuse?” “We are great at passing environmental laws, and even greater at by-passing them,” the former environment minister said.

Saxena, in his affidavit, said, “Though a mistake, the work done by them (DDA officials) was bona fide and in the interest of public good. However, the actions which have been initiated departmentally by the DDA against the erring officials.” According to the affidavit, a complaint under provisions of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act (DPTA) read with provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was filed against the erring officials of the DDA on July 5, 2024.

On October 16, the top court directed the LG to file a personal affidavit detailing actions against erring officials for allegedly illegally felling around 1,100 trees in the Delhi Ridge area in February.

The LG, who is also the chairperson of the DDA acknowledged that in February 2024, he had visited the site of a road widening project to ease access to the Central Armed Police Forces Institute of Medical Sciences (CAPFIMS), when he was told that the permission for felling trees was awaited from the “competent authority”.

“No one present at the said site on the date of the visit brought to the notice of the deponent, the legal requirement of obtaining permission of this court for felling of trees,” he said.

LG Saxena claimed he had called for the communication of such approval to be expedited, but did not realise that the court’s permission was also required.