Delhi High Court bars DDA from laying artificial turf at Siri Fort Sports Complex

The Delhi High Court recently ordered that the football and hockey fields at the Siri Fort Sports Complex (SFSC), which presently have natural grass, should not be destroyed or altered for the laying of artificial turfs. [Sudhir Gupta v Delhi Development Authority & Anr] .Justice Najmi Waziri has halted a proposal by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to convert the natural grass at the SFSC into artificial turfs..Earlier, in 2020, the Court had ordered a temporary suspension of the DDA's proposal. This order to maintain the status quo has now been made absolute by a judgment passed on June 30.."The said order is made absolute. The football and hockey fields which presently have natural grass shall not be destroyed or altered to artificial turf," the judgment stated..The judgment was passed in view of environmental concerns as well as directives by the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to maintain the green cover in the area around the SFSC. .“Siri Fort Sports Complex (SFSC) lies in the heart of South Delhi and the adjoining greenery needs to be protected at all cost, as the entire area is a green lung for the city. A park or a green area in the midst of a thickly populated residential area or commercial area is of a far greater value than a forest removed kilometres away from a human habitation," the High Court emphasised. .The Court further opined that the environmental concerns over such a proposal outweigh the need for such a football or hockey field."One cannot have a key-hole view of the environment or blinkered perspective of it. The environment is much larger than a simple football or hockey field. In a city like Delhi, the ecology of small pockets of green areas, serving as lungs for the city especially amidst densely populated residential, commercial and industrial localities is crucial and fragile ... Today it is two sports fields, tomorrow it would be something else. The creeping concretization, through seemingly innocuous projects, need to be examined from the prism of ecological balance,” the Court said..The judge observed that the laying of artificial turfs will cause irreversible damage to not only the football and hockey fields but to the contiguous green area. It is also likely to affect the people using the immediately adjacent walking path, he observed..The Court further emphasised that it is the duty of DDA to ensure that the natural environment is maintained, safeguarded, and improved.“If DDA has assessed the need for artificial turf, it may consider laying it at another place which does not have the aforenoted legal protection, as directed by the NGT and in terms of the order of the Supreme Court. However, there too it will have to ensure that the artificial turf poses no threat or harm to the local ecology," the Court said. .Justice Waziri added that the DDA will need to protect green areas, irrespective of who owns the land, especially in a city facing environmental pressure and pollution..“Each living being needs to be protected from damaged ecology. There is a shared duty and responsibility on each individual to protect the environment from harm,” the Court said..How a Delhi High Court judge has been renewing capital's green cover one order at a time.Before parting with the matter, the judge also lauded the 75-year-old senior citizen who had approached the High Court on this issue. The plea was filed by Sudhir Gupta, a permanent member of the sports complex a resident of an adjacent village. ."Like a responsible, vigilant and spirited citizen, the petitioner has stepped forward to protect the environment and ecology of his neighbourhood and of the SFSC, of which he is a member. The lone voice of a senior citizen over 75 years of age, who may simply enjoy the walks in and around the SFSC and who may not necessarily be playing any field sports, is sufficient to alarm one and all against the prospective damage to the environment and breach of judicial orders," the Court said. .The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate ML Lahoty along with advocates Paban K Sharma, Anchit Sripat and Pranab Kumar Nayak.The respondents (DDA authorities) was represented by Senior Advocate Ajay Verma along with advocates Sanjay Katyal, Latika Malhotra and Nihal Singh..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.