The Supreme Court of India recently expressed its dismay upon discovering that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has been appointing in-service judicial officers from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service as its legal advisors. This revelation came to light during a hearing on June 24, 2024, in a suo motu contempt case against DDA Vice Chairman Subhashish Panda concerning the illegal felling of trees in the Delhi Ridge Forest.
Violation of Judicial Independence
A vacation bench consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found this practice shocking and deemed it a violation of judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers. The bench asserted that judicial officers, who are meant to be impartial arbiters, cannot serve as legal advisors to a litigant like the DDA, which frequently appears before the courts in Delhi. This arrangement, the bench noted, undermines the fundamental principle of judicial independence.
Court’s Directives
The Supreme Court directed the DDA to immediately cease this practice and urged the Delhi High Court to examine the issue for appropriate corrective measures. The Court’s order highlighted the conflict of interest inherent in having judicial officers advise a major litigant, emphasizing that such a practice compromises the integrity of the judiciary.
Hearing Details
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the DDA Vice Chairman, was questioned about the DDA’s awareness of the Supreme Court’s orders in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. The involvement of judicial officers in the DDA’s legal affairs was revealed when Singh mentioned that these officers were requested to oversee the DDA’s legal work.
Justice Oka expressed disbelief at this arrangement, questioning the propriety and legality of having serving judicial officers work with a statutory authority like the DDA. He pointed out the absurdity of such a situation, suggesting that it could lead to further conflicts if extended to other statutory bodies, such as municipal corporations.
The bench observed in the order as follows :
“While we were perusing the affidavit, we came across something which is shocking. Prima facie we are of view that appointing serving judicial officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services as legal advisors of the DDA completely violates the principles of independence of the judiciary and the doctrine of separation of powers. Apart from this, the DDA is a major litigant in Courts in Delhi. We expect the Delhi HC to take appropriate action on this aspect.
We therefore direct that a copy of the order be forwarded by the Registry to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court, who shall forthwith place the same before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. We hope and trust DDA on its own will immediately discontinue this practice of appointing serving judicial officers as legal advisors of DDA. The reason is simple. In-service judicial officers cannot be appointed as legal advisors of a major litigant before the courts in Delhi.”
Bench’s Strong Remarks
The bench’s strong reaction included Justice Oka’s remarks about the basic concept of judicial independence, emphasizing that judicial officers should not be involved in the legal advisory roles for litigants. Singh conceded that this practice should indeed be avoided, acknowledging the potential conflicts of interest it presented.
Case Background and Proceedings
The bench noted that the legal department of the DDA was unaware of the Supreme Court’s orders due to a communication lapse from the Executive Engineer to the Chief Legal Advisor. The court also pointed out email correspondences indicating that the Delhi Lieutenant Governor was involved in ordering the felling of the trees after a site visit on February 3, 2024. This involvement further complicated the matter, necessitating a detailed disclosure of facts regarding the Lieutenant Governor’s instructions.
The Supreme Court’s order was forwarded to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court to be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for immediate action. The case, Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda (Dairy No. 21171-2024), continues to scrutinize the practices of the DDA and its compliance with judicial directives.
Case Detailed : Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice Chairman DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024