Summary
By majority, the Court upheld the challenged Central Vista land-use modifications, the Parliament project’s environmental clearance, CVC and DUAC decisions and selection of consultant. It required compliance with environmental mitigation measures and prior heritage permission before actual development where applicable, including plot 118. Sanjiv Khanna, J. dissented on public consultation, heritage approval and environmental appraisal, while agreeing on the consultancy and standalone DUAC conclusions.
Issues
- Whether judicial review required additional public consultation beyond the governing statutory scheme.
- Whether the land-use modifications and consultation process complied with the Delhi Development Act.
- Whether the CVC, DUAC and heritage approvals were valid.
- Whether separate environmental appraisal of the Parliament project involved unlawful project slicing.
- Whether the consultant’s selection was unlawful and what further safeguards were required.
Provisions considered
- Section 11A, Delhi Development Act, 1957The majority upheld the Central Government’s land-use modifications and substantial compliance with the prescribed procedure. (¶¶ 204–239, 242–273, 423(ii))
- Sections 11, 12 and 14, Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973Explained the Commission’s statutory functions, stage of scrutiny and the binding effect of its decisions on local bodies; upheld its approval. (¶ 299–312)
- Annexure II, clauses 1.3 and 1.12, Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016Distinguished approval for change of use from permission before development, preserving the latter requirement including for plot 118. (¶¶ 313–332, 423(i), 423(vi))
- Clause 6 and clause 7, Stage IV(i)–(ii), Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006Applied the project-specific clearance and appraisal framework; upheld environmental clearance for the Parliament project. (¶¶ 334–368, 381–382, 423(iii)–(v))
Held
- The majority confined review to legality, constitutional limits and the prescribed procedure. It rejected a project-specific heightened standard or judicial imposition of additional decision-making procedures merely because another approach appeared preferable. (¶ 124–172)
- The Central Government’s modification power is wider than DDA’s but must serve public interest and preserve the plan’s basic identity. The changes concerning plots 2–8 did not radically alter the plan; the statutory consultation procedure was substantially followed and no actual prejudice from the hearing arrangements was established. (¶¶ 199–265, 423(ii))
- CVC was an executive advisory body, and the challenge to its composition, proceedings and absence of elaborate reasons failed. DUAC considered revised proposals within its statutory aesthetic remit; consultation was required before development approval rather than before inviting consultancy bids. (¶¶ 276–312, 423(i))
- For listed heritage properties, the majority found substantial compliance with prior approval for change of use through participation of HCC officials in the approval process. This did not dispense with formal prior permission before development. The designated authority’s permission was required before work on heritage-governed plots, structures and precincts, including plot 118 if not already obtained; questions requiring HCC examination were left for it. (¶¶ 323–332, 423(vi))
- The Parliament project could be assessed separately from the Secretariat redevelopment in view of their distinct functions, financing, sites and timelines. The existing and proposed Parliament buildings were considered together. The majority found no unlawful slicing or material concealment, and upheld appraisal under the building-and-construction category. (¶¶ 333–368, 381, 423(iii))
- Environmental mitigation conditions were to be followed in letter and spirit. The disposition contemplated adequate-capacity smog towers and use of smog guns during construction, and called upon MoEF to consider similar directions for future major projects. Prior permissions for matters such as tree transplantation remained necessary. (¶¶ 363–382, 423(iii)–(v))
- The consultant was selected through a formal quality-and-cost process with notified criteria and expert evaluation. No statutory duty to hold the suggested design competition, disqualifying favouritism or arbitrariness was shown. Capping the consultancy fee addressed the objection to percentage-based remuneration. Public trust did not prohibit the beneficial public use established here. (¶¶ 383–407, 423(vii))
- In dissent, Sanjiv Khanna, J. considered meaningful disclosure, adequate hearing opportunity and consideration by the competent authority deficient; rejected deemed heritage approval; and found environmental reasons insufficient, including on slicing/inclusion. He would have quashed the land-use notification and remitted environmental clearance for reconsideration. Those proposed remands were not the majority disposition. He agreed on consultancy selection and the standalone DUAC conclusion. (¶¶ Khanna, J., 3, Khanna, J., 27–58, Khanna, J., 70–79, Khanna, J., 89–99)
Result
Matters disposed of by majority upholding the challenged decisions, subject to environmental safeguards and prior heritage permission before actual development as directed; no costs. Sanjiv Khanna, J. dissented in part.