By Nishalika Shrivastava
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave its go-ahead to the multi-crore Central Vista Project with 2:1 majority judgment. The three-judge bench comprised of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Sanjiv Khanna, and was headed by Justice Khanwilkar. The apex court upheld both the environmental clearance as well as the notification of the change in land use, stating them to be just and proper.
The ambitious redevelopment project, announced in September 2019, aims to renovate and refurbish 86 acres of land in the heart of the national capital of Delhi. The project envisages a new triangular Parliament House, a common Central Secretariat, and a refurbished power corridor Rajpath, which stretches nearly 3.5 kilometres from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate.
A few months post its announcement, several pleas were filed, including the petition filed by Rajiv Suri in the apex court in April 2020. The petition challenged the notification of the change in land use, stating that it violated the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 as well as the citizen’s Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21, amongst others. Along with the change in land use violation, the violation of environmental law and municipal law were also challenged by petitioners.
However, today, Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh gave their nod to the project, upholding the change in land use under the Delhi Development Authority Act as well as the Centre’s role in the change in land use of the Master Plan 2021. The majority verdict also held that the approvals by the Central Vista Committee (CVC) or the Heritage Conservation Committee were valid. Authoring the majority verdict, Justice Khanwilkar said that it will be mandatory to install smog guns and towers at the construction site of the Central Vista project. Moreover, permissions from the Heritage Conservation Committee and other authorities need to be sought before the commencement of any construction work at new sites.
Although the third judge of the bench Justice Sanjiv Khanna agreed with the issue of the award of the project, he did not agree with the decision on the change in land use as well as the environmental clearance granted by authorities.
