Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
RAJEEV SURI - PETITIONER
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
Transferred Case (Civil) No. 229, 230 of 2020 civil appeal no. ….…..... Of 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. ………….of 2021), (@ Diary No. 8430 of 2020), WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 510, 638, 681, 845, 853, 922, 1041 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2021
Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Section-11A - Project - Parliament House building – Construction - Grade-I heritage structure, was commissioned and stands as a 93 years old structure today- Structure has been subjected to various modifications in post-independence period so as to maintain its functionality as per changing requirements - Post 1971 census wherein the total population of India was recorded as number of seats for House of People was fixed at 545 - Today, population has spiralled exponentially and is stated to have crossed 130-crore mark - Next delimitation exercise, proposed to take place in 2026, is bound to result in a substantial increase in total number of seats in both Houses - Enhanced and commensurate spatial requirements ought to be in place - Present Central Hall has a seating capacity of only 440 persons - That already falls short of present need to accommodate members of both Houses together during a joint session - Presently, there is no scope to expand the existing Central Hall - Whether proposal is in sync with overall character of region – Held, Court have referred to contentions of petitioners and respondents in some detail but would not comment on merits - These are complex and esoteric issues which have to be at first stage considered and decided by specialised authorities like Heritage Conservation Committee - Similarly, if new parliament building is required and being a must, it should be constructed - Several former and present Speaker have expressed need for construction of a new Parliament - Some of petitioners do not oppose partial and regulated redevelopment for functionality, while maintaining and preserving heritage, ethos and visual look - Central Vista and Parliament House is an heritage and belongs to Nation and people - Their primary grievance is lack of information and details - Court set aside order of EAC dated and environment clearance by Ministry of Environment and Forest dated and would pass an order of remit to EAC with a request that they may decide question on environment clearance within a period of 30 days from date copy of this order received, without awaiting decision on question of change/modification of land use - Speaking and reasoned order would be passed – Order Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | ||
| S.NO. | TOPIC | PARAS |
| 1. | Introduction | 1 |
| 2. | Objectives of the Project | 2-10 |
| 3. | Proceedings and Contentions of the Parties | 11-123 |
| Consideration | ||
| 4. | Rule of Law | 124-135 |
| 5. | Democratic Due Process and Judicial Review | 136-158 |
| 6. | Need for Heightened Judicial Review | 159-167 |
| 7. | Constitutionalism | 168-172 |
| 8. | Participatory Democracy in India | 173-198 |
| 9. | Change in Land Use | |
| (a) What is Master Plan and Zonal Plan. (b) Modification of Plans (c) Procedure before decision (d) Procedure during decision making process and Public Hearing under Section 11A (e) Quasi Legislative Function (f) Post change in land use decision | 199 200-202 203-228 229 230-265 266-273 274-275 | |
| 10. | CVC (a) Status of CVC and Procedure Adopted for Grant of “No Objection” (b) Non-application of mind (c) Legitimate Expectation | Clearance 276-287 288-295 296-298 |
| 11. | DUAC Approval (a) Stage for Statutory Approval by DUAC (b) Arbitrariness in Grant of Approval | 299-306 307-312 |
| 12. | Challenge to Change in Land Use in Reference to Heritage Conservation | 313-325 |
| 13. | Scope of Development on Heritage Sites (Prior Approval vis-à-vis Prior Permission) | 326-332 |
| 14. | Environmental Clearance | (EC) 333-368 |
| 15. | Merits Review by NGT | 369-382 |
| 16. | Consultation Services NIT (a) Selection Process (b) Design/Concept Competition | 383-397 398-400 |
| 17. | Public Trust | 401-407 |
| 18. | Availability of Information in Public Domain | 408-410 |
| 19. | Preliminary Objection in I.A. | 411-419 |
| 20. | Postlude | 420-422 |
| 21. | Conclusion and Order | 423-425 |
INTRODUCTION
1. By these petition(s)/appeal(s)/case(s), we are called upon by the petitioners to undertake a comprehensive and heightened judicial scrutiny regarding the permissibility of the Central Vista Project1[For short, “the Project”] of the Government of India. Diverse issues concerning the decisions taken by the statutory Authorities including regarding the change in land use, grant of statutory and other permissions, environmental as well as heritage clearances etc., have been raised in these proceedings. The challenge is premised on high principles of democratic values as applicable in India and not limited to mere infringement of statutory provisions of the governing enactments. That is on account of the nature of project – being of high political significance and eminence for our democratic republic; and for upholding the “Rule of Law”, which is on a higher pedestal than the governance by “Rule by Law”.
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
2. As per the policy documents, the need for the development of the Project is rooted in the creation of a larger working space for efficient functioning of the highest legislative wing of the country and for integrated administrative block for Ministries/Departments presently spread out at different locations including on rental basis.
3. The Parliament House building, a Grade-I heritage structure, was commissioned in 1927 and stands as a 93 years old structure today. The structure has been subjected to various modifications in the post-independence period so as to maintain its functionality as per changing requirements. Post 1971 census wherein the total population of India was recorded as 548,159,6521, the number of seats for the House of People was fixed at 545. Today, the population has spiralled exponentially and is stated to have crossed the 130-crore mark. The next delimitation exercise, proposed to take place in 2026, is bound to result in a substantial increase in the total number of seats in both the Houses. Accordingly, enhanced and commensurate spatial requirements ought to be in place.
4. The present Central Hall has a seating capacity of only 440 persons. That alrea
The redevelopment of urban areas must conform to the statutory master plan while balancing development needs and environmental protections, with close adherence to traffic management and social infra....
The court upheld that established statutory procedures must be followed in preparing the Master Plan, limiting additional public objections after the conclusion of designated hearings.
Public lands designated for parks cannot be repurposed for commercial use without proper authority and procedural compliance, as dictated by urban planning laws.
If a matter is required to be done in a particular manner, the same has to be done in that manner or not at all.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
