Few months back NDA announced that they are going to construct new building for Parliament as the current building is working out to be too small. The disclosed the plan of developing Central Vista along with new building for parliament which will 3 times bigger than the present building. In the central vista many offices of central govt and offices of various ministry will shifted. As usual, it is clear that if Modi govt announces certain new projects there are many NGOs and activists who are ready to oppose the same. So a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in Supreme Court (SC), who gave their judgement on the matter yesterday.
The matter was heard by 3 judge bench.
The SC, in a majority judgement, gave its go ahead to multi Cr Central Vista redevelopment project, which proposes to build a new Parliament three times bigger than the existing 93 year old heritage building and modify the use of 86 acres of land, in the national capital.
In the majority judgement Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari said the court can not order govt to desist from spending money on one project and use the same for something else. The pettioners in their appeal had mentioned that the redevelopment project is not necessary and SC should direct the govt to use these funds for other needed projects. They said govt did not act against public interest. They brushed aside allegations the govt committed foul play and illegally carved out the parliament project from Central Vista project..
The proposed Parliament House has a built up area of 65,000 Sq meter and presently it is scheduled to be completed in 2022, in time for the 75th Independence Day celebrations and Global G 20 summit. The Central Vista project aims for an integrated administrative block, and synergised functioning of ministries presently functioning from 47 building in the capital. The majority opinion said the project did not involve any radical change in land use. The proposed change in landscape would not limit recreational spaces for public. It dismissed notions that project was unique and deserved heightened judicial review. 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 govt proceeds as per law.
Justice Sanjeev Khanna, in a separate dissent, upheld the project bid notice, award of consultancy and the order of the Delhi Urban Arts Commission, but concluded that the Centre did not take the public into confidence about the changes proposed for Central Vista, an area, which in post-Independent India, “inspires and connects common people to the citadels of our democracy. He further added that public consultation was neither sensible or meaningful. He quashed the land change notification and referred the project back to the Heritage Conservation Committee to ensure better public participation. The access of the common people to the green and other areas in the Central Vista will be restricted/curtailed. He also disagrred with majority view and set aside the environmental clearance given Ministry to Parliament building project. The public should be provided not only with information about the draft scheme but also outline of realistic alternatives and indication of main reasons for the authority’s adoption of the draft scheme.
Justice Khanwilkar, however maintained there was nothing clandestine about the project. He said a personal communication was sent to all the 1292 objectors. The proposal was placed before the parliamentary committee , chaired Lok Sabha speaker, and constituting MPs of major political parties, at thee inception stage itself. The Lok Sabha Secretariat fad approved the budget.
The various facets of the project under challenge in court included the change in land use in the Central Vista under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the permissions and approvals granted by the Central Vista Committee, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC) and the clearance/no-objection for construction of a new Parliament House under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The petitioners had also alleged that the government failed to take prior permission/approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) under the Unified Building Bye-Laws of 2016.
The majority view held the Centre’s exercise of power to change the land use under Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 was “just and proper”. Justice Khanwilkar said the environment clearance was valid.
The majority view prevailed for change of use of land in Central Vista, vision of Master plan and many other things. In majority decision, the approval given by Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC) was upheld. The DUAC’s mandate is limited to advice on the overall aesthetic quality of the region. The majority judgement found the allegations of favouritism in the selection of the consultant as baseless, and as regards to Parliament building project , the concern of heritage conservation did not arise directly.
The court, however, took note of the concerns raised that the new Parliament is proposed to be built in a vacant space adjacent to existing Parliament House. It said the HCC was free to consider the proposal in accordance with law. This did not prevent the court from upholding the “prior approval” accorded by the HCC before processing the proposal for change of use of the listed heritage building/listed precincts.
It went on to distinguish between ‘prior approval’ and ‘prior permission’ of the HCC under the Building Bye Laws of 2016.“The stage of prior permission is the stage when actual development/redevelopment work is to commence and not the incipient stage of planning and formalisation of the project, including the new Parliament,” the court said.
The court said the government should obtain prior permission of the designated Authority – Commissioner, MCD, Vice Chairman, DDA and Chairman, NDMC – before the actual development/redevelopment work, if it has not already obtained it.
In my opinion, this judgement is an eye opener to various organisations and activists who have habit of filing so many petitions on any issue, with SC, which have been saying that they can not interfere in day to day working of govt. They can only intervene, if the govt is working against the spirit of the constitution.
In so many petitions, the main issue if of green environment. All these NGOs/activists, instead of raising objections to various projects. On the contrary they should come forward and assist the govt in finding out solutions. If this does not happen then there will be number of petitions in various courts, which are going to hamper the development process. The nation needs to progress in 21st century, otherwise we will remain backward nation.
Waiting for your comments/views.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
6th January 2021