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

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1306
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
th
Issue regarding order dated 16 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
Date: 2025.11.11
16:51:34 IST
Reason:
Multiple Authorities Supervising Ridge ............................... 16
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

J U D G M E N T
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
1
significance in the National Capital Territory . 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.
st

3. The Master Plan for Delhi, 2001 notified on 1 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
2
Forest” under the Indian Forest Act, 1927
4. Pursuant to the Lovraj Committee’s Report, a preliminary
th
notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued on 24
May 1994 thereby declaring 7,777 hectares of land as Reserved
3
Forests. The Additional District Magistrate (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
th
also issued on 19 March 1996 for an extent of 7 hectares in
nd
Nanakpura Ridge. A notification dated 2 April 1996, under
4
Section 154 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was issued in
th th
compliance with the orders dated 25 January 1996 and 13
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



5
of MC Mehta v. Union of India . 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
st
1 August 1990.
6. The entire identified portions of the Delhi Ridge are as
under:

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



6
8. The Central Empowered Committee submitted a Report on
th
8 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
st
of Delhi Ridge. The Master Plan notified on 1 August 1990 also
stressed on the protection of the Ridge, while this court by order
5
th
dated 9 May 1996 in M.C.Mehta 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
th
by this court vide aforesaid order dated 9 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
7
Geological Survey of India , 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
th
order dated 30 November 2011 passed in Ashok Kumar
8
Tanwar v. Union of India and others , 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
9
that permission of the Delhi Ridge Management Board 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
8
Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) :
“ 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)
10
Ltd
. This court in the said case directed the CEC to investigate
the matter of allotment of lands by the Delhi Development
11
Authority in the Morphological Ridge areas. The CEC submitted
th
its Report dated 18 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:

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
12
Intelligence was allotted land in the Morphological Ridge, this
court directed the CEC to examine the issue. The CEC submitted
st
its Report dated 1 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
th
6 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
th
order dated 8 February 2023 passed in T.N.Godavarman
13
Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others 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
th
8 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
1
of India ,) and this Court in DDA v. Kenneth
2
Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. [(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
th
29 September 1995 passed by this court in the case of M.C.
14
Mehta v. Union of India and Others 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
th
by this court in the order dated 29 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




th
17. By a Government Order dated 6 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
th th
from time to time. Vide Notifications dated 06 October 1995, 30
rd st
April 2013, 3 July 2017 and 1 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
15
trace their authority to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 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
th
21. In view of the order dated 7 September 2007 passed by this
16
court in T.N.Godavarman v. Union of India and others , 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:
th

a) 7 September 2007- For construction of bridge over the Neela
Hauz water body;
th
b) 7 December 2007- For construction of Express Metro Link to
the Airport;
th
c) 17 October 2008-For renovation, upgradation and new
construction of Dr.Karni Singh Shooting Range, Tughlakabad,
Delhi;
th
d) 18 November 2011- Permission to DMRC;
nd
e) 2 November 2012- For the construction of transit, training
and other infrastructure facilities for the personnel of Border
Road Organization;
st
f) 21 October 2013- For underground tunnelling activity for
construction of line 7 corridor in Phase-III of Mass Rapid
Transport System project;
th
g) 10 May 2016- For construction of staff quarters near Naraina
Village;
th
h) 10 November 2016- For construction of a project to
Jawaharlal Nehru University;
th

i) 05 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;
nd
j) 22 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



th
k) 10 April 2018- Permission to Delhi Jal Board for laying of
water pipeline;
th
l) 29 August 2018- For construction of CBI Housing Complex;
th

m) 26 September 2018- Permission for construction of Flyover
and Underpass between Mahipalpur Bypass Road and Airport
Road;
th
n) 8 April 2019- For Referral and Research Army Hospital,
Ministry of Defence;
th
o) 4 November 2019- Permission to BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
for laying the underground cables; and
th
p) 29 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,
17
one Sonya Ghosh approached the National Green Tribunal by
way of an OA bearing No. 58/2013 ( Sonya Ghosh v. Government
18
of NCT of Delhi and others ) seeking notification of the Ridge
under Section 20 of the Forest Act. The learned NGT by order
th
dated 15 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
19
and Climate Change 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
18
learned NGT in Sonya Ghosh (supra ) :
“ 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.”
th

25. It was noticed by this Court vide an order dated 6 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:
th
i. Oversight Committee constituted vide order dated 15
January 2021 passed by the learned NGT in Sonya Ghosh
18
(supra) ;
ii. Centrally Empowered Committee constituted vide Judgment
th
dated 30 November 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi
8
in Ashok Kumar (supra) ;
th
iii. High-Powered Committee under order dated 8 February 2023
13
passed by this court in T.N.Godavarman (supra) .
th
iv. Committee under order dated 8 February 2023 passed by this
13
court in T.N.Godavarman (supra) 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



th
court passed the aforesaid order on 6 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
20
the case of Devinder v. Lt. Governor and Others was
th
considering the same issue. The High Court by judgment dated 8
November 2023 found the Chief Secretary to be prima facie in
th
contempt of the order dated 15 January 2021 passed by the
th
learned NGT. In its order dated 15 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
th
when the matter was heard on 8 January 2024, the Government
21
of NCT of Delhi undertook to issue the Notification under Section
20 within four weeks. It will be relevant to refer to the undertaking
th
recorded by the High Court in its order dated 8 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) .
th
Noticing all this, this court passed an order dated 24 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
th
Morphological Ridge from at least 9 May 1996; and
iii. The identification of Morphological Ridge.
Status of Final Notification under Section 20
th
34. The learned NGT vide an order dated 15 January 2021 in
Sonya Ghosh (supra) and the High Court of Delhi by an order
th 20
dated 8 January 2024 in Devinder (supra) 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
th
the Status Report dated 8 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
th
purpose of the order dated 29 September 1995 passed by this
14
court in M.C.Mehta (supra) 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
th
Committee appointed by this court by order dated 8 February
Page 23 of 39
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



13
2023 in T.N.Godavarman (supra) . 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
th

39. It will be relevant to note that CEC in its Report dated 8 May
th
2024 (5 Report of 2024) also found that “the management of
Ridge Land does not seem to be up to the mark.” The said Report
th
was placed before this court and this court vide order dated 6
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



th
40. The MoEF&CC has filed its compliance affidavit dated 7
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
th
Notification dated 6 October 1995 was issued only pursuant to
th
this court’s order dated 29 September 1995 in M.C.Mehta
14
(supra) 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 . Thirdly, the accountability and
NGT Act, 2010
Page 25 of 39
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995



transparency required of a statutory body, such as publication
22
of reports on websites, being subject to the RTI Act 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
th
MoEF&CC vide Notification dated 5 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
st
vide judgment and order dated 31 January 2024 passed in
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and
23
Others 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
24
Another v. Union of India and Another 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.
st
46. In the judgment of this court dated 31 January 2024 in
23
T.N.Godavarman
(supra) , 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



25
1972 , 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.



25
Hereinafter 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.
th
55. This court recently in judgment dated 6 March 2024
pronounced in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
26
India (In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal) 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
th
order dated 8 February, 2023 in T.N. Godavarman
13
(supra) 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