No reclamation beyond 90 ha for Mumbai coastal road until further clearances are obtained: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (SC) has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) not to undertake reclamation beyond the 90-hectare (ha) area for the coastal road

The Supreme Court (SC) has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) not to undertake reclamation beyond the 90-hectare (ha) area for the coastal road project, as mandated by the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances in 2016. BMC intends to reclaim a total of 111ha for the project and has applied for fresh clearances for the 21ha before the state’s coastal authority, which is slated to hear the application on October 31.

HT Image

As per the 2016 CRZ clearance, 90ha includes 20ha for constructing the coastal road and 70ha to be developed as green spaces for parks, cycle tracks, promenade, butterfly park and bus depots etc. The SC bench of chief justice SA Bobde, justice AS Bopanna and justice V Ramasubramanian was hearing multiple applications by environment groups, challenging the ongoing reclamation for the project, alleging BMC had reclaimed far beyond what was required for the road. “Till such clearance is obtained, no activity whether by reclamation or development will be carried out in respect of the said area (remaining 21 ha),” the SC said in the order published on Thursday.

Hussain Indorewala, professor at Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of Architecture and Environmental Studies, presented maps showing the extent of reclamation proposed versus undertaken by BMC, alleging excess reclamation at Haji Ali and Worli. “The petitioners had originally submitted these maps about a month ago in the Supreme Court. BMC had argued in court that the additional area is needed for the sea wall, which will be partially below water. Why was this not part of the proposal submitted for CRZ clearance in 2016? BMC now wants clearance for these additional areas. Furthermore, excess reclamation has already been carried out in front of Worli promenade without clearance,” said Indorewala.

BMC had told the SC that they had reclaimed 52.35ha of the sea, including 4.5ha for the sea wall, along south Mumbai for the 9.9-km ₹14,000-crore coastal road, which is to be an eight-lane highway connecting Princess Street Flyover to the southern tip of the Bandra-Worli Sea Link, from March to September. “This has now increased to approximately 60ha presently,” said Vijay Nighot, chief engineer (coastal road), BMC, adding, “The SC has clarified in its latest order that reclamation for the road pertained to all necessary reclamation, which includes the sea wall construction. However, reclamation for remaining 21ha will only begin post clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) during October last week.”

The SC, in its latest order, clarified its December 17, 2019 order, wherein the bench stayed previous orders by the Bombay High Court (from July 2019) that quashed CRZ clearances to the civic body, and allowed reclamation of the land, 0but restricted BMC from carrying out any other development work. “We have clearly referred to ‘the land’ which meant the land over which the coastal road project is to be executed and that is 90 ha. By the December 17, 2019 order, this court specifically permitted the concerned authorities to construct a road and secure the same thereon. We see no ambiguity which warrants modification or correction of that order,” the order read.

Responding to contentions that BMC did not have environment clearance under the Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1986, the SC also said that, as per submissions by BMC and its contractors, the CRZ clearance was issued after more intensive scrutiny than it is under EPA.

Debi Goenka, executive trustee, Conservation Action Trust and applicant before the SC, said BMC had admittedly carried out reclamation which was not included in the CRZ Clearance. “Thus, BMC and its contractors need to be prosecuted under EPA. They have also violated the SC order of December 2019, which did not allow them to reclaim land for the seawall,” he said.

“It is a sad day for the environment as till now, the SC has always held that, in matters of environment, the precautionary principle will apply, and such environmentally damaging projects will be subject to greater scrutiny by the courts. It is indeed sad to see that our top court has modified their views on environmental preservation,” said activist Zoru Bhathena.

Meanwhile, the SC’s order directed that a representative of the original writ petitioners (before the Bombay high court) were allowed to remain present and be heard in the matter when MCZMA would decide on issuing CRZ clearance for the additional 21 ha proposed by BMC. “We make it clear that any activity undertaken by the petitioners and the concerned contractors shall be at their own risk and shall be subject to the final outcome of the present proceedings,” the SC order read.