Supreme Court Gives Nod to Central Vista Project By2:1 Majority, Justice Sanjiv Khanna Dissents

(Judicial Quest News Network)

The Supreme Court While Delivering its verdict on Central Vista Re-Development project said the exercise of the power under the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)Act was valid and the recommendations of the environmental clearance by the Ministry of Environment is proper.

This is the first and significant ruling of the Apex Court of 2021, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court gave the green signal to the redevelopment of New Delhi’s Central Vista area, rejecting a batch of petitions challenging the scheme for alleged violation of land use and environmental norms.

In a 2:1 Majority, the Supreme Court approved and confirmed the modifications in the change in land use. The recommendations of the environmental committee were also valid and proper, the three-judge bench said.

“Selection and appointment of environmental consultant I the case is held to be just and proper. Modifications regarding change in land use stand confirmed,”

A Bench of Justices AM Khanilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna pronounced the judgement, with Justices Khanwilkar and Maheshwari forming the majority, and with Justice Khanna pronouncing a separate judgement.

Justice Khanna, the third judge on the bench, also agreed on the issue of the award of the project. He, however, disagreed with the judgement on change of land use and on the grant of environmental clearance for the project. There was no prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee he said, adding the matter, therefore, has to be remitted back for a public hearing. On the question of environmental clearance, he opined that it was a non- speaking order.

The Central Government is proposing the redevelopment of the Central Vista area by constructing a new Parliament house, a new residential complex that will house the Prime Minister and Vice-President, as well as several new office buildings and Central Secretariat to accommodate Ministry officers.

The Central Vista revamp, announced in September, 2019 envisages a new triangular Parliament building, with seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs, that is to be constructed by August,2020 when the country will be celebrating its 75th Independence Day.

The petition challenged the December 21,2019 notification by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) regarding the changes in land use for the redevelopment.

Defending the project, The Centre Submitted that presently, there is no scope to expand the existing Central Hall. Resultantly, the Joint Sessions of both the Houses 6 of Parliament are conducted by way of a makeshift arrangement in the Central Hall causing inconvenience to the members attending official functions thereat, apart from undermining their dignity. Furthermore, the structure falls short of fire, water and electrical safety norms and poses a grave security risk for the legislators and secretariat staff.

It has further been submitted that the cramped seating arrangement both for members of the House and the staff posed a serious security risk in case of either any fire hazard or any external attack requiring quick evacuation. The existing Parliament is not built from the earthquake resistant point of view;

The Centre has submitted that in order to address the concerns stated above, the Central Government decided to construct a new Parliament building with a futuristic approach and the House of People being 3 times the size of the present chamber. That along with the present Parliament building and Annexe attached therewith, would be referred to as the Parliament Complex.

It is further proposed that all the 51 Ministries of the Central Government be housed in 10 buildings within an integrated complex marked with underground transit connectivity and structural identity. Expressing the need for urgent completion of the project, it has been stated that the new Parliament shall symbolize the 75th Independence Day of the country in 2022 as well as the Global G20 Summit to be hosted by India in the same year.

The objectives, as stated in the written submissions of the respondents, succinctly read thus:

“(i) A new Parliament Building with space and technology to meet the present and emerging needs of vibrant Indian democracy.

(ii) Common Central Secretariat with all Ministries in a single location for efficiency and synergy in functioning.

(iii) Central Vista to be redeveloped as a world class public space and venue for national and international events.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Representing the Centre, said that the current Parliament building, which was opened in 1927, does not adhere to fire safety norms, has a serious space crunch, and is not earthquake-proof.

As regards the decision to supplement the existing Parliament building (on plot No. 116 admeasuring 10.75 acres having built-up area 44940 sq. mts.) with utilities constructed on plot No. 118 admeasuring 10.5 acres having built-up area of 5200 sq. mts. which is not a heritage building/site; has been felt necessary because:

(i) The existing Parliament House was constructed during 1921-1927;

(ii) The building was constructed prior to independence to house the Imperial Legislative Council and was never intended to house a bicameral national legislature;

(iii) 2 floors were added to this structure in 1956 as per the demand for more space; (iv) Periodically ad-hoc additions have taken place in this building as per the requirement of the day, which has added to an additional stress on the heritage structure;

(v) The building is not designed as per the fire norms;

(vi) Water supply lines and sewer lines are installed in a haphazard manner, leading to seepage and destroying the heritage nature of the building; 11

(vii) These systems like audio-video system, A/c system etc. are later additions and were installed in various stages on an ad-hoc basis;

(viii) By 2026, the number of seats in Lok Sabha would increase from 545. Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are packed and would have no capacity for addition of seats when the number of seats would increase;

(ix) To prepare the Houses of Parliament for emerging spatial requirements in light of the impending delimitation exercise.

(x) In the Central Hall of the Parliament, the seating capacity is only for 440 persons. Whenever constitutional joint sessions are held, large number of temporary seats are placed in the aisles, undermining the dignity of this great democratic institutions;

(xi) The cramped seating arrangement both for members of the House and the staff posed a serious security risk in case of either any fire hazard or any external attack requiring quick evacuation. The existing Parliament is not built from the earthquake resistant point of view;

(xii) Concerns about these factors have been raised periodically by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in past. 12

(xiii) To ensure a modern and technologically advanced space for single and joint sittings of the Houses of Parliament commensurate with modern safety norms; and

(xiv) To preserve the built heritage by not undertaking aggressive reconstruction activity on graded heritage structures on which only minimum renovation measures are permissible in law.

Government also argued that all necessary statutory approvals including environmental clearances were in place and that the project cannot be scrapped merely because the petitioner felt a better process or method could have been adopted.

Unless there was any violation of Constitutional or legal provisions, the Court should refrain from scrapping the project and there was no occasion to warrant judicial interference in the present casa, Mehta submitted.

The Court hared the arguments in the last week of October and first week of November last year before reserving its judgment on November 5, 2020