Supreme Court Upholds Public Consultation in Delhi Master Plan Amendments: M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (2018)

Date of the Judgment: May 24, 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can the government drastically reduce the time for public feedback on crucial city planning changes? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning amendments to the Master Plan for Delhi. The court examined whether the government could shorten the period for public objections from 90 days to a mere 3 days. The bench, comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur and Navin Sinha, delivered the judgment, with Justice Lokur authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) proposed amendments to the Master Plan for Delhi. The Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959, govern this process. The rules initially required a 90-day period for the public to submit suggestions and objections to proposed changes. However, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs issued a notification on January 31, 2018, drastically reducing this period to just 3 days, citing public order concerns or exigencies. This change was made by inserting a proviso in Clause (b) of Rule 5 of the Rules.

Following this change, public notices were issued on February 3, 2018, inviting objections. Due to public demand, the deadline was extended by two days, to February 6 and 7, 2018. Despite the short notice, the authorities received 741 objections and suggestions. Hearings were conducted on February 9, 10, and 12, 2018, with 210 individuals participating. The Board of Enquiry recommended modifications on February 26/27, 2018, which were approved by the DDA on February 27, 2018. The proposals were then sent to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs for final approval.

On March 6, 2018, the Supreme Court issued an interim order staying further progress on the amendments. The DDA then applied to vacate this order, leading to the May 15, 2018 order, which the Attorney General sought to modify.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court had initially stayed the amendments on March 6, 2018. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) then filed an application to vacate the stay. In response, the Supreme Court passed an order on May 15, 2018, which stipulated that the Central Government should provide a 15-day period for public objections to the proposed amendments to the Master Plan. The Attorney General then requested a modification of this order, which led to the present judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957: This section allows for amendments to the Master Plan for Delhi.
• Rule 5 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959: This rule outlines the procedure for public consultation during the preparation of the Master Plan. Specifically, it initially mandated a 90-day period for the public to submit suggestions and objections. The relevant part of the rule states:
  

  “(1) As soon as may be after the draft master plan has been prepared, the Authority shall publish a public notice stating that: (b) Suggestions and objections in writing, if any, in respect of the draft master plan may be filed by any person with the Secretary of the Authority within 90 days from the date of first publication of the notice.”

• Proviso to Clause (b) of Rule 5 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959: This proviso, inserted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs on January 31, 2018, allowed the Central Government to reduce the objection period to 3 days under certain circumstances:
  

  “Provided that where the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of maintenance of public order or in case of any exigency likely to effect the interest of the public, it may require such suggestions and objections to be filed within a period of 3 days from the date of the notice.”

• Rule 7 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959: This rule mandates that notice be given to local authorities and they can make representations within 45 days.
  

  “The Authority shall cause the said notice referred to in Rule 6 to be sent to every local authority within whose limits any land touched by the plan is situate, and such local authority may, within a period of 45 days from the date of the notice, make any representation with respect to the plan to the Authority.”

The court’s analysis focused on whether the proviso to Clause (b) of Rule 5 was validly invoked and whether the reduction of the public consultation period was justified.

Arguments

The Attorney General made an oral request for modification of the Supreme Court’s order dated May 15, 2018, specifically regarding the 15-day notice period for public objections to the Master Plan amendments. The Attorney General argued that the Central Government should be able to notify amendments after considering objections, without the mandatory 15-day period. The Attorney General’s submission was based on an interpretation of Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, which, according to him, allows for amendments after meaningful consideration of objections.

The Attorney General also submitted that the proviso to Clause (b) of Rule 5 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959, was invoked due to public order concerns and exigencies. He stated that there were riots in Delhi, which necessitated the reduction of the objection period from 90 days to 3 days.

The Court, however, noted that no specific details of the riots or any FIRs were provided. The Court also observed that the overwhelming public response, despite the short notice, indicated a strong public interest in the proposed amendments. The court noted that the public of Delhi is vitally interested in the proposed amendments and the future of Delhi and future generations in Delhi.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the reduction of the public consultation period for amendments to the Delhi Master Plan from 90 days to 3 days was justified under the proviso to Clause (b) of Rule 5 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The authorities considered were:

Judgment

The Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General’s request to modify the order dated May 15, 2018. The Court upheld the requirement of a 15-day notice period for public objections to the proposed amendments to the Master Plan. The Court emphasized the importance of public participation in the planning process and found that the government had not provided sufficient justification for reducing the consultation period to 3 days. The Court noted that the overwhelming response from the public despite the short notice showed the public’s deep interest in the matter.

The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need for meaningful public participation in the amendment process of the Delhi Master Plan. The Court emphasized that the public’s interest in the matter was paramount and that any changes to the plan must be made with adequate consultation. The Court was also wary of the government’s attempt to curtail the public consultation period without providing sufficient justification. The absence of any evidence of public disorder or exigency further solidified the Court’s decision to reject the Attorney General’s request.

The court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court considered the interpretation of Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and Rule 5 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the proviso to Rule 5 could be invoked without sufficient evidence of public disorder or exigency. The Court emphasized that the public’s right to be heard and to participate in the planning process was paramount. The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law, as there was no basis to do so.

The Court stated,

“It is painful to require the issuance of directions to statutory authorities to carry out their mandatory functions in accordance with the law enacted by Parliament. Unfortunately, the situation in Delhi warranted such a direction due to the apathy of the civic authorities.”

The Court also stated,

“We are at a loss to understand the hyper-reaction and how changes in the Master Plan are sought to be brought about without any meaningful public participation with perhaps an intent to satisfy some lobbies and curtailing a period of 90 days to just 3 days on some unfounded basis.”

The Court further stated,

“It must be appreciated that the people of Delhi come first.”

There were no minority opinions in this judgment.

Key Takeaways

• Public participation is crucial in urban planning decisions, especially those related to the Master Plan of a city.
• Governments cannot arbitrarily reduce the time for public consultation without providing sufficient justification.
• The judiciary will intervene to ensure that statutory authorities carry out their mandatory functions in accordance with the law.
• The interests of the public, particularly the residents of Delhi, must be given priority in decisions affecting the city’s development.
• The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in governance.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to expeditiously implement the order dated May 15, 2018, in letter and spirit, keeping the interest of the public of Delhi in mind.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the government cannot arbitrarily curtail the period for public consultation in matters of significant public interest, such as amendments to the Master Plan of a city. The judgment reinforces the importance of public participation and transparency in urban planning and development. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it emphasizes the importance of following the procedures prescribed by law.

Conclusion

In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the importance of public consultation in the amendment process of the Delhi Master Plan. The Court rejected the Attorney General’s request to modify its earlier order, emphasizing that the government cannot arbitrarily reduce the time for public feedback without valid reasons. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that statutory authorities adhere to the law and protect the public’s right to participate in decisions affecting their city’s development.

Category

• Urban Planning
  • Master Plan
  • Public Consultation
• Delhi Development Act, 1957
  • Section 11A, Delhi Development Act, 1957
• Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959
  • Rule 5, Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959
• Public Interest Litigation
  • Environmental Law

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India case?

A: The main issue was whether the government could reduce the public consultation period for amendments to the Delhi Master Plan from 90 days to 3 days.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court rejected the government’s attempt to reduce the consultation period to 3 days and upheld the requirement of a 15-day notice period for public objections.

Q: Why did the government reduce the consultation period?

A: The government claimed it was due to public order concerns and exigencies, but the court found no evidence to support this claim.

Q: What does this judgment mean for the public?

A: This judgment means that the public’s right to participate in decisions affecting their city’s development is protected and that governments cannot arbitrarily curtail this right.

Q: What is the significance of this case for urban planning?

A: This case highlights the importance of public participation and transparency in urban planning and development and reinforces the need for governments to follow due process.