2021 (2) TMI 568 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking Petitioners to undertake a comprehensive and heightened judicial scrutiny regarding the permissibility of the Central Vista Project of the Government of India - challenge is premised on high principles of democratic values as applicable in India and not limited to mere infringement of statutory provisions of the governing enactments - nature of project-being of high political significance and eminence for our democratic republic; and for upholding the Rule of Law which is on a higher pedestal than the governance by Rule by Law - HELD THAT - The contentions of the Petitioners and Respondents have been referred in some detail but would not comment on merits. These are complex and esoteric issues which have to be at first stage considered and decided by the specialised authorities like the Heritage Conservation Committee. If we consider and examine the merits of the pleas we would be directly encroaching their jurisdiction and exceeding the power of judicial review. It is the reasoning and discussion in the orders by the statutory/quasi-judicial that are subjected to judicial scrutiny and review. Further matters pertaining to heritage architectural functionality etc are for the experts and specialists in the field like Architects town planers historians urbanists engineers etc. to examine and guide. Suffice it would be to observe that the stands on merits reflect different perceptions and beliefs. The Respondents without doubt do verily believe that redevelopment of Central Vista and new Parliament building is an imperative necessity. Central Vista requires a makeover. The hutments and some of the non-heritage buildings like Shashtri Bhawan Nirman Bhawan Udyog Bhawan etc. which it is stated occupy more than 90 acres of land require re-development. Similarly if new parliament building is required and being a must it should be constructed. Several former and the present Speaker have expressed the need for construction of a new Parliament. Some of the Petitioners do not oppose partial and regulated redevelopment for functionality while maintaining and preserving the heritage ethos and visual look. Central Vista and Parliament House is an heritage and belongs to the Nation and the people. Their primary grievance is lack of information and details. They submit that experts and specialists can provide acceptable solutions to conserve and make historical buildings functional as it has happened elsewhere. The issues raised by the Petitioners along with the stand of the Respondents have to be taken into consideration by the statutory authorities in terms of and as per the statutory mandate. Ultimately the issue has to be decided as per law after ascertain details by professional experts. Our interference does not reflect on merits of the stands but is on account of procedural illegalities and failure to abide the statutory provisions and mandate. Following directions are issued A) The Central Government/Authority would put on public domain on the web intelligible and adequate information along with drawings layout plans with explanatory memorandum etc. within a period of 7 days. B) Public Advertisement on the website of the Authority and the Central Government along with appropriate publication in the print media would be made within 7 days. C) Anyone desirous of filing suggestions/objections may do so within 4 weeks from the date of publication. Objections/suggestions can be sent by email or to the postal address which would be indicated/mentioned in the public notice. D) The public notice would also notify the date time and place when public hearing which would be given by the Heritage Conservation Committee to the persons desirous of appearing before the said Committee. No adjournment or request for postponement would be entertained. However the Heritage Conservation Committee may if required fix additional date for hearing. E) Objections/suggestions received by the Authority along with the records of BoEH and other records would be sent to the Heritage Conservation Committee. These objections etc. would also be taken into consideration while deciding the question of approval/permission. F) Heritage Conservation Committee would decide all contentions in accordance with the Unified Building Bye Laws and the Master Plan of Delhi. G) Heritage Conservation Committee would be at liberty to also undertaken the public participation exercise if it feels appropriate and necessary in terms of paragraph 1.3 or other paragraphs of the Unified Building Bye Laws for consultation hearing etc. It would also examine the dispute regarding the boundaries of the Central Vista Precincts at Rajpath. H) The report of the Heritage Conservation Committee would be then along with the records sent to the Central Government which would then pass an order in accordance with law and in terms of Section 11A of the Development Act and applicable Development Rules read with the Unified Building Bye-laws. I) Heritage Conservation Committee would also simultaneously examine the issue of grant of prior permission/approval in respect of building/permit of new parliament on Plot No. 118. However its final decision or outcome will be communicated to the local body viz. NDMC after and only if the modifications in the master plan were notified. J) Heritage Conservation Committee would pass a speaking order setting out reasons for the conclusions. Case is remitted to the EAC with a request that they may decide the question on environment clearance within a period of 30 days from the date copy of this order received without awaiting the decision on the question of change/modification of land use.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Parking and vehicular movement
2. Rationalization of open spaces and integration with old buildings
3. Urban form and aesthetics of the new Parliament building
4. Environmental and sustainability features
5. Approval process by DUAC and subsequent revisions
6. Parking requirements and environmental concerns
7. Compliance with heritage conservation laws and change in land use
8. Environmental Clearance (EC) process and categorization of the project
9. Public consultation and transparency in the approval process

Detailed Analysis:

1. Parking and Vehicular Movement:
The judgment highlights the need for proper planning of parking spaces as per statutory requirements. The interface between vehicular and pedestrian/visitor movement needs to be indicated, and issues with the gate opening towards Rafi Marg Circle require resolution.

2. Rationalization of Open Spaces and Integration with Old Buildings:
The DUAC emphasized the rationalization of open spaces around the proposed new building and the integration of the new building with the old building. This includes ensuring that the new development complements the existing structures aesthetically and functionally.

3. Urban Form and Aesthetics of the New Parliament Building:
The DUAC noted that the urban form and aesthetics of the new Parliament building need improvement. The elevation design should be less overbearing and more representative of India's diversity and democratic ideals. The facade facing the present Parliament should be appropriately treated to maintain a symbolic connection. The new building's form as visible from Vijay Chowk should be visually scaled to the present Parliament building.

4. Environmental and Sustainability Features:
The DUAC recorded observations on the building's interiors, windows, natural light, ventilation, skylights, and sustainability features in accordance with green building provisions in Delhi. Despite these observations, the initial proposal was "Not Approved."

5. Approval Process by DUAC and Subsequent Revisions:
After an initial rejection, the project proponent submitted a revised proposal, which was scrutinized and approved by the DUAC after detailed discussions. The revised proposal incorporated the DUAC's observations, particularly concerning parking and environmental concerns.

6. Parking Requirements and Environmental Concerns:
The revised proposal addressed parking requirements by suggesting the distribution of parking across several plots around the complex. The DUAC recommended exploring the possibility of Multi-Level Car Parking (MLCP) to consolidate parking in one plot, accommodating all users, including MPs, staff, media, and visitors. The DUAC also advised enhancing natural lighting features and appropriately locating trees to ensure pedestrian pathways are not disturbed.

7. Compliance with Heritage Conservation Laws and Change in Land Use:
The judgment addresses concerns about compliance with heritage conservation laws. The new Parliament building project does not directly involve heritage conservation issues as the plot is not an enlisted heritage property. However, its proximity to the existing Parliament building, a Grade-I structure, raises concerns about its impact. The judgment discusses whether the project breaches the Unified Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016, and whether approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) is required at the development stage.

8. Environmental Clearance (EC) Process and Categorization of the Project:
The judgment examines the validity of the EC granted to the new Parliament project. It discusses whether the project was miscategorized to reduce scrutiny, whether the EC process was thorough, and whether the project proponent complied with the 2006 Notification and related guidelines. The court concludes that the EC was granted after a detailed scrutiny process, but emphasizes the need for ongoing monitoring and compliance with environmental conditions.

9. Public Consultation and Transparency in the Approval Process:
The judgment underscores the importance of public consultation and transparency. It criticizes the lack of detailed information provided to the public during the consultation process and emphasizes the need for meaningful public participation in such significant projects. The court calls for better disclosure of project details to ensure informed public input and adherence to legal requirements.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlights the need for thorough planning, compliance with statutory and heritage conservation requirements, and meaningful public consultation in the approval process for significant development projects like the new Parliament building. It emphasizes the importance of integrating new developments with existing structures, ensuring environmental sustainability, and maintaining transparency and public participation throughout the process.