As per case facts, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and its officials, without obtaining prior explicit permission from the Supreme Court (SC) as mandated by the 1996 MC Mehta order ... for any construction in the ecologically sensitive Delhi Ridge, commenced and completed the felling of over 1,000 trees to build an approach road for CAPFIMS; The DDA then sought post-facto permission from the SC but wilfully suppressed the fact that the trees had already been felled; A contempt petition and suo motu criminal contempt proceedings were initiated against the DDA Vice Chairman and other officials; The DDA apologized, suspended errant officials, and initiated disciplinary action, arguing the felling was an administrative misjudgment for a public interest project (hospital access); The question arose whether the DDA officials' conduct of proceeding with extensive tree felling on the Delhi Ridge without prior SC permission and actively concealing this material fact during judicial proceedings constituted wilful and deliberate contempt, and if so, what were the appropriate remedial and corrective measures to purge the contempt, especially when weighed against the competing public interest of providing urgent access to a hospital. Finally, the Supreme Court answered that yes, the conduct was gravely contumacious and constituted criminal contempt, as the conscious non-disclosure of material facts strikes at the heart of the justice delivery system, but due to the overwhelming public interest served by the medical facility (CAPFIMS), the Court chose a reformative and restorative approach over a purely retributive one; consequently, the rule nisi was discharged, the contempt proceedings were closed subject to the imposition of a censure and a small environmental fee on the errant officials, and the DDA was directed to immediately undertake extensive ecological restoration through compensatory afforestation, closely supervised by the Court-appointed Committee, and to complete the road project.