Supreme Court central vista judgment
- The Supreme Court recently gave its nod to the Central Vista redevelopment project in a 2:1 verdict.
- Case: Rajeev Suri vs Union of India.
- A Bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna pronounced the 2-1 judgment, with Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Maheshwari forming the majority.
- Justice Khanna pronounced a separate judgment
WHAT WAS CHALLENGED?
- A petition was filed in the Supreme Court in April 2020, challenging the Centre’s change-of-land-use notification of March 2020 with regard to the 86 acres of land.
- The petitioner, Rajeev Suri, submitted that the order violated the citizen’s Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 by depriving people of open and green spaces.
- The court heard the challenge on three main grounds: change of land use; violations of municipal law; and violations of environmental law.
WHAT THE COURT REASONED?
- In its 2:1 verdict, the court has held that there are no infirmities in the approvals granted.
- Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari held that the central government’s change of land use for the project in the Master Plan of Delhi 2021 is also a lawful exercise of its powers.
- It was ruled that the exercise of the Central government under the DDA Act is legal and valid, and the impugned notification stands confirmed.
- Also, recommendation by the Environmental Committee was held just and legal.
- Justice Khanna too agreed with the decision that the project should continue, but said he had a different opinion on the change of land use.
- He said that there was no prior approval of heritage conservation committee and thus matter remitted back for public hearing.
MASTER PLAN
- Master Plan of Delhi was notified in 2007 to guide the direction of development of the National Capital Territory until 2021.
- The central government and the Delhi Development Authority are given the power to modify it.
- The plan was modified in March 2020 to include the Central Vista project.
- Sections of land are assigned for specific purposes such as recreation, government, public and semi-public, which were modified to accommodate the Central Vista project.
- The petitioners argued that change in land use was not really a “modification” and also raised concerns on the manner in which the permissions were granted.
Comments
Post a Comment