The Delhi High Court has stayed a standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by the Delhi government that permitted the pruning of certain tree branches without prior approval. The court stated that the removal of the mandatory nod from a tree officer for such pruning is "in teeth of" an earlier ruling.
Background of the Case
The court was acting on a contempt petition filed by Bhavreen Kandhari, which drew attention to its May 29, 2023 judgment. In that judgment, the High Court had ruled that there was no provision under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act allowing pruning of branches with a girth of up to 15.7 cm without specific permission from a tree officer.
The petition highlighted that despite the 2023 order, the government issued the SOP last year for tending and pruning of trees. The SOP stated that no permission was required for "general tending and light pruning" where the branch girth was less than 15.7 cm. It also allowed agencies such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and Public Works Department (PWD) to undertake pruning in public areas in certain cases.
Court's Observations
Justice Jasmeet Singh noted, "By virtue of the notification, the respondent is undoing the (2023) judgment, which to my mind cannot be so done," while staying the SOP. The court pointed out that its judgment, which had already attained finality, was binding on the authorities. They could not nullify or bypass the effect of a judicial decision through an executive notification.
The court directed the government to file a response in the form of an affidavit within four weeks and posted the matter for further hearing on July 20, 2026.
Previous Ruling on Tree Pruning
In 2023, the High Court had similarly set aside earlier guidelines that permitted regular pruning of tree branches with a girth of up to 15.7 cm without prior permission. The court also ordered that no trimming would be permitted except in accordance with the law.
At that time, the court referred to "glaring examples of misuse of the generous permission" to prune such trees. It noted that the "so-called permission" under the guidelines sought to overreach the statute, which laid down the manner of pruning. The court observed that the sole objective of the Act was preservation of trees, and that permission for cutting, girdling, lopping, and pollarding was to be strictly regulated.
