Junks petitions on violation of land use and green norms
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court by a 2:1 majority on Tuesday allowed the Government to go ahead with the Central Vista Redevelopment Project, which included construction of a new Parliament Building and a common Central Secretariat, with certain riders. The court rejected a batch of petitions challenging the scheme for alleged violation of land use and environmental norms.
The 611-page majority verdict was given by Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari. The third judge on the bench, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, dissented with regard to change of land use and prior approval of Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC). Justice Khanna also found the environment clearance inadequate.
Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari held that there were no infirmities in the clearances given for the project and the grant of environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use for the project was valid.
“We hold that there is no infirmity in the grant of: (a) ‘No Objection’ by the Central Vista Committee (CVC).... ‘Approval’ by the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) as per the DUAC Act, 1973; and (c) ‘Prior approval’ by the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) under clause 1.12 of the Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016,” said Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
The majority verdict held that the exercise of power by the Central Government under the DDA Act was “just and proper” in affecting the modifications regarding the change in land use of seven plots of the Central Vista project. It confirmed the Government’s notification of March 20, 2020 on land use.
“The recommendation of Environmental Clearance (EC) by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and grant thereof by MoEF is just, proper, and in accordance with law including the 2006 Notification. We uphold the same along with appropriate directions therein to ensure that the highlighted mitigating measures are followed by the project proponent in their letter and spirit,” it held.
The majority 425-page judgement of Justice Khanwilkar dealt with several aspects and objections raised in as many as 10 petitions including the one filed by Rajeev Suri.
“We are equally compelled to wonder if we can jump to put a full stop on the execution of policy matters in the first instance without a demonstration of irreparable loss or urgent necessity, or if we can guide the Government on moral or ethical matters without any legal basis. In light of the settled law, we should be loath to venture into these areas,” the majority verdict said.
“We need to say this because in the recent past, the route of public/social interest litigation is being increasingly invoked to call upon the court to examine pure concerns of policy and sorts of generalised grievances against the system. No doubt, the courts are repositories of immense public trust and the fact that some public interest actions have generated commendable results is noteworthy, but it is equally important to realise that courts operate within the boundaries defined by the Constitution. We cannot be called upon to govern,” Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Maheshwari said.
While Justice Sanjiv Khanna -- who delivered a dissenting verdict -- said the change in land use and environmental clearances given to the project were “bad in law”. Justice Khanna, wrote a dissenting 179-page judgement on aspects relating to public participation in the decision-making process and on alleged failure on the part of the authorities in taking prior approval of the HCC for the project.
“Since I have reservations with the opinion expressed by my esteemed brother AM Khanwilkar on the aspects of public participation on the interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee, I have penned down a separate dissenting judgment,” Justice Khanna said. He concurred however with the majority verdict on the aspects of “notice inviting bid, award of consultancy and the order of the Urban Arts Commission, as a standalone and independent order”. Justice Khanna, however, agreed with the majority on the aspect of notice inviting bid for the project, award of the contract and order of urban commission.
The Central Vista revamp, announced in September 2019 envisages a new triangular Parliament building, with a seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs, that is to be constructed by August, 2022 when the country will be celebrating its 75th Independence Day. The common Central Secretariat is likely to be built by 2024 under the project.
A number of petitions challenged the construction of Central Vista project in the Lutyen’s zone, alleging certain violations, including change in land use and environmental compliances.
The petitioners, including activist Rajeev Suri, have challenged various permissions given to the project by the authorities, including the nod for change of land use. They have questioned the project over environmental clearance granted to the project and the historical value of the existing building.
Another 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.