Supreme Court shocked by DDA’s appointment of judicial officials as legal advisers, saying it violates judicial independence

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 24) expressed shock over the practice of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appointing serving judicial officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service as legal advisors.

Finding that such a practice violated judicial independence and the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court asked the DDA to put an end to it. The Court also urged the Delhi High Court to look into the matter and take appropriate action.

A holiday bench including Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a suo motu contempt case filed against DDA vice-president Subhashish Panda for felling trees in Delhi Ridge forest in violation of Supreme Court orders.

While going through the affidavit of the DDA vice-chairman, the bench noticed this “shocking practice” followed by the DDA of appointing serving judicial officers as legal advisors.

The bench observed in the following order:

“While going through the affidavit, we came across something shocking. Prima facie, we are of the view that the appointment of serving judicial officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Services as legal advisors to 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 the Delhi courts. We hope that the Delhi HC will 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 file the same before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. We hope and trust that DDA will immediately put an end to this practice of appointing sitting judges as legal advisors to DDA. The reason is simple. Practicing judicial officers cannot be appointed as legal advisors to a major litigant in the courts of Delhi.

What happened during the hearing?

During the hearing Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing on behalf of the Deputy Chairman of the DDA, responded to the court’s question whether the legal department of the DDA was aware of the Supreme Court orders passed in MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.

The involvement of judicial officers in the legal department came to light when Mr. Singh argued that DDA had asked a few judicial officers to help supervise the work of the legal team.

“The Bailiffs are there to help DDA in carrying out their legal work and to advise them. They (DDA) ask them (the bailiffs) to please see the work of the lawyers…”

Justice Oka was quick to intervene and point out the absurdity of the involvement of judicial officers in the legal affairs of statutory bodies.

“How could practicing bailiffs work with the DDA? We don’t understand…we seek your help on this. The DDA is a statutory authority. Tomorrow you will say that bailiffs should work with the municipal corporation… This is shocking. “DDA is a litigant before this Court and the bailiffs are helping him. What is going on ? »

The bench further asked Mr. Singh to refrain from encouraging such an argument.

“Mr Singh, are you advocating this? Judicial officers working with DDA as legal advisors? Please stop this practice immediately”

The Court was also informed that there were two senior magistrates who were working as legal advisors and chief legal advisors to the DDA.

To which Justice Oka responded that having members of the judiciary as advisors within the statutory body of the executive went against the concept of judicial independence.

“How? There is something called judicial independence. Have you forgotten the basic concept?”

Singh agreed that this practice of having judicial officers as legal advisors should be avoided by the DDA.

“They are one of the main litigants in Delhi courts, it would be totally inadvisable for judicial officers to become their legal advisors.”

The DDA’s main defense was that the executive engineer had failed to inform the chief legal adviser of the felling of the trees. The Legal Department was therefore unaware of the slaughter instructions.

During the hearing, the Court noted that the e-mail correspondences indicated the involvement of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in the order to clear the trees.

The Court then passed a detailed order asking the Vice President to disclose clear facts about the involvement of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The bench noted that certain email communications referred to a site visit carried out by the LG on February 3, 2024 and that the felling of the trees was carried out as per the instructions of the LG after the site visit. The detailed report can be viewed here.

Detailed case: Bindu Kapurea v. Subhasish Panda Dairy No. 21171-2024, In Re Subhasish Panda Vice-President DDA SMC(Crl) No. 2/2024