E-Paper
SC refuses to review its order on clearing Central Vista project
The review petitions were dismissed by a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari in separate orders passed on July 15 and July 20.
The Supreme Court has refused to revisit its judgment of January 5 granting clearance to the Central Vista Redevelopment Plan that envisages a new Parliament, Central Secretariat and offices of ministers at an estimated cost of ₹15,000 crore.
The review petitions were dismissed by a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari in separate orders passed on July 15 and July 20. The bench said, “Prayer for listing or hearing the review petitions in open court is rejected. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated January 5, 2021. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review is made out.”
The review petitions are heard and decided in chambers by the judges who gave the verdict. In the event, the review petitions are allowed, the same are listed in open court for the hearing.
The review petitions were filed by architect and urban planner AG Krishna Menon, activist Lieutenant Colonel (Retd) Anuj Srivastava and former bureaucrat Meena Gupta. Menon’s petition was decided on July 15 while the remaining two review petitions were decided on July 20 by the same bench.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court by a 2:1 majority had approved all clearances for the Central Vista redevelopment project, including environmental clearance and change of land use by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
The dissenting verdict was by Justice Sanjiv Khanna which held that the change of land use did not follow the process under the law for adequate consultation and public participation.
The majority verdict, on the other hand, took the view that in a given case, it is for the legislature to decide by law whether a personal oral hearing is required, mere representation is to be invited, or the matter calls for public discussion and not the Court. It noted that the land use change was not of a “radical character” as it was meant for the similar purpose of having government offices, public and semi-public use and recreation.
“The project does not involve any conversion into private ownership and has no element whatsoever of permitting commercial use of vital public resources. The proposed project is in line with the standards of public trust and the petitioners have failed to point out any circumstance which would suggest otherwise,” the majority judgment had stated.
It did not agree with the petitioners that the entire Central Vista area was a heritage zone. However, the majority view held that the Government will have to take approvals from the Heritage Conservation Committee and municipal authorities before construction of the new Parliament begins. The Centre had appointed HCP Design, Planning and Management as the consultant for the Central Vista project in September 2019. This decision too was approved by the Court.
The proposed new Parliament will have a built-up area of around 60,000 square metres with expanded seating for over 1,200 members of both Houses, along with 51 Union ministries in 10 buildings.
On the environmental clearance front, the petitioners had argued that it was wrong on part of the project proponent Central Public Works Department (CPWD) to split the proposal and seek a green nod for the new Parliament building and not the entire redevelopment project. However, this challenge was rejected by the Court.
The judgment required the Government to install smog towers at the site and laid down that in future construction projects, smog towers and smog guns shall be mandatory. The majority view said, “Time has come to advance the intent behind improving air quality as a mandatory feature for modern buildings and more particularly during the phase of construction of such major projects in the cities most affected by air pollution.” The court directed the Centre to issue directions in this regard.
The order by the Court came on a clutch of petitions filed by Rajeev Suri, Anuj Srivastava, AG Krishna Menon and Meena Gupta who opposed the hurried manner in which the Centre went about giving approvals for the Central Vista Project.
They claimed that the entire Parliament and surrounding structures enjoyed the “heritage building” tag and could not be destroyed. It was further apprehended by the petitioners that once the new structures are in place, the area would be marked as a “High-Security Zone” closing public access to Rajpath, lawns and water bodies adjoining it.
It was in March 2020 that the Centre notified the change of land use of the Central Vista area comprising 86 acres of land.
The petitions were heard for over five months and the challenge to the project was broadly classified under the change in land use, clearance by Central Vista Committee in April 2020, environmental clearance, violation of municipal laws and scope of development on heritage sites.
