Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Suri Versus Delhi Development Authority

Case Covered:

Rajeev Suri

Versus

Delhi Development Authority

Facts of the Case:

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 of the Government of India. Diverse issues concerning the decisions taken by the statutory Authorities including regarding the change in land use, the 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 the 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”.

Observations:

We have referred to the contentions of the petitioners and respondents in some detail but would not comment on merits. These are complex and esoteric issues that have to be at the first stage considered and decided by the specialized authorities like the Heritage Conservation Committee. If we consider and examine the merits of the pleas, we would be directly encroaching their jurisdiction and exceeding the power of judicial review. It is the reasoning and discussion in the orders by the statutory/quasijudicial that are subjected to judicial scrutiny and review. Further, matters pertaining to heritage, architecture, functionality, etc are for the experts and specialists in the field like Architects, town planners, historians, urbanists, engineers, etc. to examine and guide. Suffice it would be to observe that the stands on merits reflect different perceptions and beliefs. The respondents without a doubt do verily believe that redevelopment of Central Vista and the new Parliament building is an imperative necessity. Central Vista requires a makeover. The hutments and some of the non-heritage buildings like Shashtri Bhawan, Nirman Bhawan, Udyog Bhawan, etc. which it is stated occupy more than 90 acres of land require re-development. Similarly, if the new parliament building is required, and being a must, it should be constructed. Several former and the present Speaker have expressed the need for the construction of a new Parliament. Some of the petitioners do not oppose partial and regulated redevelopment for functionality while maintaining and preserving the heritage, ethos, and visual look. Central Vista and Parliament House is a heritage and belongs to the Nation and the people. Their primary grievance is a lack of information and details. They submit that experts and specialists can provide acceptable solutions to conserve and make historical buildings functional, as it has happened elsewhere. The issues raised by the petitioners along with the stand of the respondents have to be taken into consideration by the statutory authorities in terms of and as per the statutory mandate. Ultimately, the issue has to be decided as per law after ascertaining details by professional experts. Our interference does not reflect on the merits of the stands but is on account of procedural illegalities and failure to abide by the statutory provisions and mandate.

The Decision of the Court:

In view of the aforesaid discussion, while setting aside and quashing the final notification of modification/change of the land use dated 28th March 2020 in respect of the 6 plots in the Central Vista, we would direct as under:

A) The Central Government/Authority would put on public domain on the web, intelligible and adequate information along with drawings, layout plans, with explanatory memorandum, etc. within a period of 7 days.

B) Public Advertisement on the website of the Authority and the Central Government along with appropriate publication in the print media would be made within 7 days.

C) Anyone desirous of filing suggestions/objections may do so within 4 weeks from the date of publication. Objections/ suggestions can be sent by email or to the postal address which would be indicated/mentioned in the public notice.

D) The public notice would also notify the date, time, and place when public hearing, which would be given by the Heritage Conservation Committee to the persons desirous of appearing before the said Committee. No adjournment or request for postponement would be entertained. However, the Heritage Conservation Committee may if required fix additional dates for a hearing.

E) Objections/suggestions received by the Authority along with the records of BoEH and other records would be sent to the Heritage Conservation Committee. These objections etc. would also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of approval/permission.

F) Heritage Conservation Committee would decide all contentions in accordance with the Unified Building Bye-Laws and the Master Plan of Delhi.

G) Heritage Conservation Committee would be at liberty to also undertake the public participation exercise if it feels appropriate and necessary in terms of paragraph 1.3 or other paragraphs of the Unified Building Bye-Laws for consultation, hearing, etc. It would also examine the dispute regarding the boundaries of the Central Vista Precincts at Rajpath.

H) The report of the Heritage Conservation Committee would be then along with the records sent to the Central Government, which would then pass an order in accordance with the law and in terms of Section 11A of the Development Act and applicable Development Rules, read with the Unified Building Bye-laws.

I) Heritage Conservation Committee would also simultaneously examine the issue of grant of prior permission/approval in respect of building/permit of the new parliament on Plot No. 118. However, its final decision or outcome will be communicated to the local body viz., NDMC, after and only if, the modifications in the master plan were notified.

J) Heritage Conservation Committee would pass a speaking order setting out reasons for the conclusions.

We set aside the order of the EAC dated 22nd April 2020 and the environment clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 17th June 2020, and would pass an order of remit to the EAC with a request that they may decide the question on environment clearance within a period of 30 days from the date copy of this order received, without awaiting the decision on the question of change/modification of land use. Speaking and reasoned order would be passed.

Parties, if aggrieved by any order/approval/non-approval would be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with the law.

In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.

Read & Download the full Decision in pdf: