SC Gives Green Signal to Central Vista Project by 2:1 Majority
The Supreme Court held that the right to development is a basic human right and no organ of the State is expected to become
SC Gives Green Signal to Central Vista Project by 2:1 Majority The Supreme Court held that the right to development is a basic human right and no organ of the State is expected to become an impediment in the process of development as long as the government proceeds in accordance with law The three-member bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari...
SC Gives Green Signal to Central Vista Project by 2:1 Majority
The Supreme Court held that the right to development is a basic human right and no organ of the State is expected to become an impediment in the process of development as long as the government proceeds in accordance with law
The three-member bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna on 5 January 2021 pronounced the judgment and upheld the Central Government's plan for construction of Central Vista project, government's proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyens' Delhi and rejected the number of petitions challenging the scheme for alleged violation of land use and environmental norms.
The Court ruled by a majority of 2:1 and held that the power exercised under the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Act was just and valid and that the grant of environmental clearances by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change was also valid and proper.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Centre said that the current Parliament building, which was opened in 1927, does not obey to fire safety norms and has serious threat due to space crunch and not even earthquake-proof. He further added that no construction or demolition of structures or cutting down of trees would take place.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that no construction or demolition of structures or cutting down of trees in relation to the redevelopment of New Delhi's Central Vista area would take place of the government project.
Justice AM Khanwilkar read out the majority judgment on behalf of himself and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, "selection and appointment of environmental consultant in the case is held to be just and proper. Modifications regarding change in land use stand confirmed,"
Howsoever, Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented from the majority opinion as he was of the view that change of land use was associated with the project. He held that while the award of the project cannot be faulted with, prior approval of the heritage committee was required when it came to change in land use.
"I have agreed with brother judge, Justice Khanwilkar on notice inviting bid and award of project. However, on the question of grant of change of land use, I have a different opinion. I have held that the same was bad in law. There was no prior approval of Heritage Conservation Committee and thus matter is remitted back for public hearing. On the environmental clearance aspect, it was a non-speaking order," Justice Khanna read out his dissenting opinion.
The petitioners before the Supreme Court challenged a notification issued by DDA on 21 December 2019 regarding changes in land use for the redevelopment.
Rajeev Suri, one of the petitioners, argued that the alterations envisaged by the Centre involve changes to land use and standards of population density and that the DDA is not entrusted with the requisite power to bring about such changes. He submitted that the power for bringing about such changes, if at all, lies with the Central government.
Among other petitioner, Lt Col (retd) Anuj Srivastava, challenged the public hearings held to raise objections to the exercise, arguing that they were a mere formality devoid of any meaningful consequence.
Meena Gupta, a former Secretary of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, filed an intervention application in the pending case highlighting environmental concerns due to the redevelopment.
The Central government had defended the project claiming that the construction of a new Parliament building and a Central Secretariat has become an absolute necessity due to the stress on the present ones.
"There is an imminent need to have a new Parliament building. The current building was built in 1927 prior to independence and was intended to house the legislative council and not a bicameral legislature we have today. The building does not conform to fire safety norms and water and sewer lines are also haphazard which is damaging the heritage nature of the building. Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are packed. When joint sessions are held, members sit on plastic chairs diminishing the dignity of the House," SG Mehta told the Court.
The apex court finally observed that the judicial organ is not meant to impose the citizens' or even its own version of good governance upon the Government in the name of 'Rule of Law' in the exercise of its power of judicial review.
The Court highlighted, "The constitutionally envisaged system of 'checks and balances' has been completely misconstrued and misapplied in this case. The principle of 'checks and balances' posits two concepts – 'check' and 'balance'. Whereas the former finds a manifestation in the concept of judicial review, the latter is derived from the well-enshrined principle of separation of powers396. The political issues including regarding development policies of the Government of the day must be debated in the Parliament, to which it is accountable. The role of Court is limited to examining the constitutionality including legality of the policy and Government actions. The right to development, as discussed above, is a basic human right and no organ of the State is expected to become an impediment in the process of development as long as the government proceeds in accordance with law."