REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 229 OF 2020 RAJEEV SURI ...PETITIONER Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS with TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 230 OF 2020 CIVIL APPEAL NO. ….…..... OF 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. …………./2020) (@ Diary No. 8430/2020) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 510/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 638/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 681/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 845/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 853 OF 2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 922/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1041/2020 1 J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. TABLE OF CONTENTS S.NO. TOPIC PARAS 1. Introduction 1 2. Objectives of the Project 2-10 3. Proceedings and Contentions of the 11-123 Parties Consideration 4. Rule of Law 124-135 5. Democratic Due Process and 136-158 Judicial Review 6. Need for Heightened Judicial 159-167 Review 7. Constitutionalism 168-172 8. Participatory Democracy in India 173-198 9. Change in Land Use 199 a) What is Master Plan and Zonal 200-202 Plan. b) Modification of Plans 203-228 c) Procedure before decision 229 d) Procedure during decision- 230-265 making process and Public Hearing under Section 11A e) Quasi Legislative Function 266-273 f) Post change in land use decision 274-275 2 10. CVC Clearance a) Status of CVC and Procedure 276-287 Adopted for Grant of “No Objection” b) Non-application of mind 288-295 c) Legitimate Expectation 296-298 11. DUAC Approval a) Stage for Statutory Approval by 299-306 DUAC b) Arbitrariness in Grant of 307-312 Approval 12. Challenge to Change in Land Use in 313-325 Reference to Heritage Conservation 13. Scope of Development on Heritage 326-332 Sites (Prior Approval vis-à-vis Prior Permission) 14. Environmental Clearance (EC) 333-368 15. Merits Review by NGT 369-382 16. Consultation Services NIT a) Selection Process 383-397 b) Design/Concept Competition 398-400 17. Public Trust 401-407 18. Availability of Information in Public 408-410 Domain 19. Preliminary Objection in I.A. 411-419 20. Postlude 420-422 21. Conclusion and Order 423-425 3 INTRODUCTION 1. By these petition(s)/appeal(s)/case(s), we are called upon by the petitioners to undertake a comprehensive and heightened judicial scrutiny regarding the permissibility of the Central Vista Project1 of the Government of India. Diverse issues concerning the decisions taken by the statutory Authorities including regarding the change in land use, grant of statutory and other permissions, environmental as well as heritage clearances etc., have been raised in these proceedings. The 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. That is on account of the 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”. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT 2. As per the policy documents, the need for the development of the Project is rooted in the creation of a larger working space for efficient functioning of the highest legislative wing of the 1 For short, “the Project” 4 country and for integrated administrative block for Ministries/Departments presently spread out at different locations including on rental basis. 3. The Parliament House building, a Grade-I heritage structure, was commissioned in 1927 and stands as a 93 years old structure today. The structure has been subjected to various modifications in the post-independence period so as to maintain its functionality as per changing requirements. Post 1971 census wherein the total population of India was recorded as 548,159,6521, the number of seats for the House of People was fixed at 545. Today, the population has spiralled exponentially and is stated to have crossed the 130-crore mark. The next delimitation exercise, proposed to take place in 2026, is bound to result in a substantial increase in the total number of seats in both the Houses. Accordingly, enhanced and commensurate spatial requirements ought to be in place. 4. The present Central Hall has a seating capacity of only 440 persons. That already falls short of the present need to accommodate members of both Houses together during a joint session. Presently, there is no scope to expand the existing Central Hall. Resultantly, the Joint Sessions of both the Houses 5 of Parliament are conducted by way of a makeshift arrangement in the Central Hall causing inconvenience to the members attending official functions thereat, apart from undermining their dignity. Furthermore, the structure falls short of fire, water and electrical safety norms and poses a grave security risk for the legislators and secretariat staff. 5. In order to address the concerns stated above, the Central Government decided to construct a new Parliament building with a futuristic approach and the House of People being 3 times the size of the present chamber. That along with the present Parliament building and Annexe attached therewith, would be referred to as the Parliament Complex. It is further proposed that all the 51 Ministries of the Central Government be housed in 10 buildings within an integrated complex marked with underground transit connectivity and structural identity. Expressing the need for urgent completion of the project, it has been stated that the new Parliament shall symbolize the 75th Independence Day of the country in 2022 as well as the Global G- 20 Summit to be hosted by India in the same year. The objectives, as stated in the written submissions of the respondents, succinctly read thus: 6 “(i) A new Parliament Building with space and technology to meet the present and emerging needs of vibrant Indian democracy. (ii) Common Central Secretariat with all Ministries in a single location for efficiency and synergy in functioning. (iii) Central Vista to be redeveloped as a world class public space and venue for national and international events.” 6. Similar structural defects, along with acute shortage of office spaces, have been pointed out in the offices of various Ministries presently spread across 47 buildings in the Central Vista region and in particular, Central Secretariat block. It is stated that various buildings housing the Ministries, including North Block and South Block, are ill-equipped to meet even the basic fire and earthquake safety norms and require regular upgradations involving recurring expenses to the tune of Rs.50 crores annually. As per Non-Availability Certificates (NACs) issued by Directorate of Estate, a shortage of 3.8 lakh sq.m. of office space has been flagged. To add to this state of affairs, the Central Government is spending an amount equivalent to about Rs.1,000 crores on rental spaces to accommodate the offices of various Ministries annually. The proposal states thus: “Most of the buildings in the Central Vista area are more than 40-50 years old and have either outlived or approaching their structural lives. Further buildings constructed over 100 years ago such as North and South Block are not earthquake safe. There is shortage of working spaces, parking amenities and services. The 7 spread of Central Government Ministries and Departments in different locations leads to inefficiencies and difficulty in coordination.” 7. Upon examination of other documents associated with the Project, the objectives for redeveloping/constructing the existing Central Secretariat have been broadly summed up thus: (i) Even after 73 years of independence, the nation does not have a common secretariat building. Some Ministries are housed in Central Vista complex while some Ministries are housed in other parts of Delhi; (ii) Various Ministries, due to lack of available space, have hired premises on rent and till date most of the rent paid for and on behalf of the Central Government for using its Ministries in Delhi runs into thousands of crores; (iii) Except North Block and South Block and one or two other buildings, rest of the buildings are not heritage buildings and are constructed in the near vicinity based upon the need; (iv) Most of the existing buildings have outlived its structural life and are not earthquake resistant; (v) As there is no common Central Secretariat and Ministries are spread over different locations, the resultant effect is administrative inefficiency and difficulty in inter-departmental coordination; 8 (vi) This also leads to travelling, resulting into traffic congestion and pollution; (vii) Existing secretariat buildings spread all over haphazardly, suffering from poor servicing, inefficient use of land, inadequate facilities and outdated infrastructure; (viii) There are six plots on Central Vista, which houses temporary barracks or stable building during 2nd World War occupying 90 acres of land, which has remained underutilised; (ix) To utilise the underutilised spaces in the Central Vista region; (x) Integrated functioning of all offices of the Central Government; (xi) Modernisation of Government work spaces for enhanced productivity and efficient management of human resources; (xi) To promote the concept of green buildings commensurate with scientific standards and sustainable with the needs of future generations; and (xiii) To connect all the ministerial offices through an underground shuttle transportation system for smooth performance of routine administrative functions. 9 8. As regards the decision to supplement the existing Parliament building (on plot No. 116