Central Vista Project: Supreme Court Upholds Land Use Changes and Environmental Clearance (5 January 2021)

Case Background

The Central Vista Project is a government initiative to redevelop a significant area in New Delhi, including the construction of a new Parliament building and a common central secretariat. The project aims to modernize government infrastructure and address the need for more space for India’s growing democracy. The project was initiated due to concerns about the age and inadequacy of existing buildings, as well as the need to accommodate a larger number of members of Parliament after the next delimitation exercise in 2026.

Several petitions were filed challenging the project, raising concerns about the manner in which the project was being carried out. The petitioners, claiming to be public-spirited individuals, contested the changes in land use, grant of statutory permissions, environmental and heritage clearances, and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially approached the High Court of Delhi, challenging the public notice for changes in land use. A single judge directed the respondents to inform the court before taking any further steps. However, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed this direction. Subsequently, the Supreme Court withdrew the matter to itself, agreeing to hear all related petitions together.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several key legal provisions:

• ✓ Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957: This section outlines the procedure for modifications to the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan. It differentiates between the powers of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Central Government in making such modifications. The DDA can make modifications that do not affect the character of the plan or the extent of land use and population density, while the Central Government has broader powers.

  “11A. Modifications to plan. —(1) The Authority may make any modifications to the master plan or the zonal development plan as it thinks fit, being modifications which, in its opinion, do not effect important alterations in the character of the plan and which do not relate to the extent of land-uses or the standards of population density.”

  “(2) The Central Government may make any modifications to the master plan or the zonal development plan whether such modifications are of the nature specified in sub-section (1) or otherwise.”

• ✓ The Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973: This act establishes the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) to advise the government on preserving and maintaining the aesthetic quality of urban design in Delhi. The Act mandates that local bodies must refer development proposals to the DUAC for scrutiny.

  “11. Functions of the Commission. — (1) It shall be the general duty of the Commission to advise the Central Government in the matter of preserving, developing and maintaining the aesthetic quality of urban and environmental design within Delhi and to provide advice and guidance to any local body in respect of any project of building operations or engineering operations or any development proposal which affects or is likely to affect the sky-line or the aesthetic quality of surroundings or any public amenity provided therein.”

• ✓ The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006: These provisions require prior environmental clearance for certain projects. The notification categorizes projects into A and B based on their potential environmental impact, with different procedures for each category.
• ✓ The Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016: These bye-laws provide regulations for building construction and heritage conservation in Delhi. Annexure II specifically deals with heritage sites and outlines restrictions on development, requiring prior permission from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) for any changes.

  “1.3 Restrictions on Development/Re-development/Repairs etc. (i) No development or redevelopment or engineering operation or additions/alterations, repairs, renovations including painting of the building, replacement of special features or plastering or demolition of any part thereof of the said listed buildings or listed precincts or listed natural feature areas shall be allowed except with the prior permission of Commissioner, MCD, Vice Chairman DDA/Chairman NDMC. Before granting such permission, the agency concerned shall consult the Heritage Conservation Committee to be appointed by the Government and shall act in accordance with the advice of the Heritage Conservation Committee.”

• ✓ General Clauses Act, 1897: Used to determine the computation of time periods in the public notice.

Arguments

The petitioners raised several arguments against the project, including:

• ✓ The changes in land use were proposed without framing an updated Zonal Development Plan (ZDP) for Zone D, as mandated in the Master Plan Delhi, 2021.
• ✓ The proposed modifications substantially alter the Master Plan, which is beyond the power of the Authority.
• ✓ The respondents acted arbitrarily and violated Article 21 and the Doctrine of Public Trust by denying access to public spaces.
• ✓ The public notice for hearing was given at short notice, denying natural justice to objectors.
• ✓ The Central Vista Committee (CVC) was reconstituted with a conflict of interest, and its “No Objection” was granted without proper application of mind.
• ✓ The project proponent deliberately separated the Parliament project from the larger Central Vista Project to lower the scrutiny level for environmental clearance.
• ✓ The project proponent concealed relevant information and supplied misleading information to the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC).
• ✓ The Consultation Services NIT undermined fair competition and prevented international firms from applying.
• ✓ The project was not preceded by a widely publicized Open Design Competition.
• ✓ The respondents failed to consult the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) at the plan conception stage.
• ✓ The project violates democratic due process by not involving the public in decision-making.

The respondents countered these arguments, stating:

• ✓ The changes in land use were minor modifications and did not substantially alter the Master Plan.
• ✓ The power of the Central Government to propose modifications is unrestricted.
• ✓ The procedure prescribed by law was strictly followed by the Authority and adequate time was given for public hearing.
• ✓ The CVC is merely an advisory body with a limited mandate to advise the Government.
• ✓ The Parliament project was rightly categorized as a B2 project (Building and Construction) and did not require a detailed EIA.
• ✓ The Parliament project and the Central Secretariat project are distinct and can be addressed separately.
• ✓ The CVC was reconstituted as per emerging needs and nomination to chairmanship is made on the basis of designation.
• ✓ The CVC had applied its mind and the grant of no objection was a pre-requisite to further processing of the proposal.
• ✓ The project is in larger national interest and must be treated accordingly.
• ✓ The doctrine of public trust does not prohibit the Government from utilizing resources for public interest.
• ✓ The project does not affect any heritage structure.
• ✓ The respondent had followed the principle of “Rule by Law” and not “Rule of Law”.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

• ✓ Whether the change in land use of the subject plots is permissible in law?
• ✓ If permissible, to what extent can such change be made within the contours of law?
• ✓ Whether the parameters, procedural or otherwise, to be followed for effecting such change have been duly followed by the respondents?
• ✓ What is the status of CVC?
• ✓ Is the Government bound by the opinion of CVC?
• ✓ Whether CVC has failed to exercise its mandate while granting “No Objection” to the subject proposal?
• ✓ Whether the clearance by CVC stands vitiated due to absence of reasons and non-application of mind?
• ✓ Whether the approval of DUAC was essential even before the release of Consultation Services NIT?
• ✓ Whether DUAC acted in an arbitrary manner while considering the proposal thereby vitiating the approval granted by it?
• ✓ Whether the subject new Parliament building project has breached the scope of changes permissible under Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016 relating to heritage buildings/precincts?
• ✓ Whether the approval of HCC is mandated at the development stage or prior thereto?
• ✓ Whether the respondents have acted in violation of 2006 Notification and O.M. dated 24.12.2010 by not submitting the entire Project i.e., Central Vista Project as conceived by the Government of India, for EC at the same time?
• ✓ Whether the applicant misdescribed/miscategorised the Parliament project as Category B2 (Building & Construction) project in item 8(a) as per the 2006 Notification so as to reduce the level of scrutiny?
• ✓ Whether the grant of EC by MoEF and recommendation thereof by EAC stands vitiated on account of non-application of mind and failure to discharge their mandate as per law?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, by a majority of 2:1, upheld the Central Vista Project. Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari delivered the majority opinion, while Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented in part.

Majority Opinion:

• ✓ The Court held that the change in land use was permissible under Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, as the Central Government has broader powers for modifications.
• ✓ The Court found that the changes were minor modifications and did not alter the basic character of the Master Plan.
• ✓ The Court held that the respondents had substantially followed the prescribed procedure, including issuing public notices, considering objections, and obtaining necessary approvals.
• ✓ The Court held that the CVC is an advisory body and its opinion is not binding on the Government.
• ✓ The Court found that the CVC had not failed to exercise its mandate and had given its “No Objection” after due deliberation.
• ✓ The Court held that DUAC approval was not essential before the release of the Consultation Services NIT.
• ✓ The Court found that DUAC did not act arbitrarily and had applied its mind while considering the proposal.
• ✓ The Court held that the new Parliament building project did not breach the scope of changes permissible under the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016.
• ✓ The Court held that prior approval of the HCC was required for changes in land use of listed heritage buildings/precincts, but such approval was implicit in the meetings of the Authority where the Chairman and other members of the HCC were present.
• ✓ The Court found that the respondents did not violate the 2006 Notification or O.M. dated 24.12.2010.
• ✓ The Court held that the project proponent did not misdescribe or miscategorize the Parliament project.
• ✓ The Court held that the grant of EC was not vitiated due to non-application of mind.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Sanjiv Khanna):

• ✓ Justice Khanna partially dissented on the aspect of prior approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) and the environmental clearance (EC).
• ✓ He held that the prior approval from the HCC was mandatory before any changes could be made to the heritage buildings or precincts. He also opined that the approval from the HCC could not be implicit.
• ✓ He disagreed with the majority view on the environmental clearance for the project. He held that the project proponent had failed to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and had deliberately separated the Parliament project from the larger Central Vista Project to avoid proper scrutiny.
• ✓ He held that the project proponent had failed to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and had deliberately separated the Parliament project from the larger Central Vista Project to avoid proper scrutiny.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the Central Vista Project is a significant ruling on the balance between development and environmental concerns. The majority opinion upheld the government’s right to proceed with the project, emphasizing the Central Government’s broader powers in making modifications to the Master Plan. However, the dissenting opinion highlighted the importance of due process, prior consultation with the Heritage Conservation Committee, and a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment. The case underscores the need for transparency and public participation in large-scale infrastructure projects, while also recognizing the government’s prerogative to pursue development goals. The judgment also demonstrates the judiciary’s role in balancing the interests of development with the need to protect the environment and heritage.