Central Vista, New Parliament Building pass Supreme Court scrutiny, legal hurdles

New Delhi: The ambitious redevelopment project of the country’s power corridor, Central Vista, which includes the new Parliament building inaugurated on Sunday, has faced several legal challenges over the years. The project was announced in September 2019 and Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the new Parliament building on December 10, 2020.

All controversies or controversies related to the project have invariably landed in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, the latest being a PIL in which a lawyer has sought a direction to the Lok Sabha Secretariat for the inauguration of the new Parliament House by President Draupadi. Murmu.

Two days before the inauguration of Parliament by Prime Minister Modi, a vacation bench of the apex court dismissed a PIL filed by Tamil Nadu lawyer Jaya Sukin. The NDA government’s Central Vista project also includes a common Central Secretariat and the rejuvenation of the three-km-long Rajpath from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate.

The first court case against the project was filed in the Delhi High Court in 2020 by Rajeev Suri and Anuj Srivastava and others, challenging the granting of environmental clearance and approval by the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) and the Heritage Conservation Committee for land use Went. Changes as per DDA Act and selection of design consultant etc.

On February 11, 2020, a single judge bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher of the High Court directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to approach the court before notifying any changes in the master plan to go ahead with the project.

The Center challenged the order before a division bench of the High Court which stayed its single judge’s direction to the DDA on February 28, 2020.
Later, in March 2020, the apex court transferred the case from the Delhi High Court to itself in “larger public interest” and it also heard other fresh petitions challenging the project.

The Supreme Court, which gave its verdict on January 5, 2021, gave a green signal to the Rs 13,500-crore Central Vista revamp project by a 2:1 majority, saying there was “no shortfall” in the grant. Environmental clearance and permission for change of land use.

The majority judgment held that it could not jump to put a “full stop” on the execution of policy matters and that the courts could not be asked to ‘rule’.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna delivered a dissenting judgment in which he touched upon issues such as “failure” to seek prior approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC). He also said that public participation is not a mere mechanical exercise or formality.

Then, in April 2021, translator Anya Malhotra and historian and documentary filmmaker Sohail Hashmi filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court seeking suspension of construction work during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, citing health and other safety concerns. There was a demand to raise

A Delhi High Court division bench of then Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the construction work of the project to continue on May 31, 2021, saying it was an “important and essential” national project.

The High Court dismissed the PIL seeking a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The apex court also refused to entertain the appeal against the High Court order and refused to set aside the fine imposed on the petitioners. A division bench of the apex court had said that the petitioners had selectively challenged the Central Vista project to the exclusion of other project works.

The top court also considered petitions challenging the design of the lion statue atop the new Parliament building. The court said that the lion statue did not violate the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

The petitioners, advocate Aldanish Reen and others, had claimed that the lions with their mouths open and dogs appearing in the logo appear ferocious and aggressive.

The PIL said the lion sculptures at Sarnath, the original source of the national emblem, look “calm and composed”. The last PIL was a PIL by advocate Jaya Sukin seeking directions to the Lok Sabha Secretariat for the inauguration of the new Parliament building by President Draupadi Murmu.

“What is your interest in filing this petition? We understand why you have come up with such petitions. Sorry, we are not interested in considering this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Be grateful, we Not levying cost,” a vacation bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice PS Narasimha said on Friday.

Sukin said that the President is the executive head of the country under Article 79 and he should have been invited.
Built at an estimated cost of Rs 1200 crore, the new Parliament House can comfortably accommodate 888 members in the Lok Sabha chamber and 300 members in the Rajya Sabha chamber. In the event of a joint sitting of both the houses, a total of 1,280 members can be accommodated in the Lok Sabha chamber.