Delhi High Court rejects Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam’s bail pleas again

In 1991, Gurmail Singh Bhatia, an 80-year-old retired government officer, planted a neem sapling in his backyard in Delhi's Rohini neighborhood. As he diligently cared for the tree over 35 years, it became a point of contention when a severe storm in May 2024 uprooted it, causing it to endanger power lines. The Delhi government's forest department accused Bhatia of illegal felling and pruning, and in August 2024, directed him to plant 20 tall saplings nearby and one additional tree at the original location.

Bhatia challenged this order through his attorney, RK Ruhil. The Delhi High Court intervened on Tuesday, criticizing the state government for the excessive order and staying its implementation. Justice Amit Mahajan questioned the government's actions, saying, "How can you pass such an order? You're not a court." The court also deemed the Delhi Preservation of Trees (DPT) Act, under which the government issued its order, as "badly drafted."

The incident began when a dust storm and thunderstorm struck Delhi on May 11, 2024, uprooting Bhatia's neem tree, which was left partially hanging over live electrical wires. Bhatia filed a complaint with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for tree maintenance, but it took them about two months to attend to the site. The MCD uprooted the tree, cutting it into pieces and removing the majority of its stem, leaving a portion at the site that continues to decay.

Bhatia argued that his estranged son, involved in a partition suit against him, had complained about his alleged illegal felling of the tree, leading to the forest department's proceedings against him in December 2024. On August 17, 2024, the forest department's tree officer issued the order requiring Bhatia to plant 20 saplings at a nearby location and one additional tree at the original site, with strict instructions for their maintenance over the next seven years.

Bhatia had informed the forest department about his medical condition, stating that it would not be feasible for him to maintain the proposed trees. The deputy forest conservator defended the order in court, citing Section 31 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, which grants tree officers quasi-judicial and legal powers, including summoning witnesses and issuing search warrants.

Section 24 of the Act also permits penalties for violating any provisions, including orders from tree officers. However, Justice Mahajan dismissed the argument, stating, "You have no power. How can you ask someone to plant trees if they don't want to? This is a badly drafted Act, I don't know who has drafted this Act." The High Court sought a response from the Delhi government's forest department.