By Sneha Awasthi
Introduction
One of the most ambitious exercises in redevelopment taken up by the Government of India in recent times is the Central Vista Project. It essentially involves redeveloping New Delhi’s heart—namely, the area surrounding Rajpath, India Gate, and Parliament House into a modern administrative enclave. While the government touts this project as a necessity for India’s future, it has courted controversy and resulted in a full-fledged legal battle in the Supreme Court.
Background and Context
The Central Vista project is a concept developed by India’s government in which governmental area of 3 kms in New Delhi including Rajpath, parliament house, Rashtrapati Bhavan, India gate and other governmental buildings etc. He has outlined plans to build the new Parliament in central India and fresh complexes for various ministries besides the redevelopment of roads and buildings. People manifested their opposition because, as the government told the world, the project was vital to replace ageing infrastructure. Concerning the issues of controversy, critics have pointed to transparency, environmental features, cultural conservation, and resource allocation during the COVID-19 outbreak. These concerns peaked in a legal case brought by Rajeev Suri an activist and others at the Supreme Court of India.
Key Constitutional Articles Involved
Article 14 – Right to Equality - Ithis Article it is confirmed that all citizens are equal before the law. The rights of equality were also denied, stated the petitioners, with the govt’s approval of the Central Vista Project as arbitrary, done without adequate public participation and no consultation as provided by the law.
Article 19(1)(a) - Freedom of Speech and Expression - This Article also protect the freedom of speech and individual freedom in the country as granted in the Constitution. As it turned by the petitioners, the process of approbation of this project has restricted the freedom of people’s manifestation, it was regarded as the violation of such right.
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty - Article 21 is another general right of the citizen under which the right to life has been included and in right to life the constitutional courts of India has encompassed the right to live in a healthy environment. The petitions also said that the impacts that the project was likely to have on the environment would harm the health of the people and hence violate their right to life.
Article 49 – Protection of Monuments This Article places the responsibility of the protection of monuments and place of national importance in the State. In writing the petition the petitioners said that the redevelopment of Central Vista would erode its historical and cultural significance.
Article 51A – Fundamental Duties – As provided under Article 51A, it is the duties of every citizen of India to protect and preserve the natural environment of India including both the wildlife, the forests and the water bodies such as the lakes, the rivers, the seas and the oceans. The government had regrettably failed on these duties especially on those in relation to protection of the environment and conservation of heritage as far as the petitioners were concerned.
Key arguments by the Petitioners
Arbitrariness and Lack of Brey: The Central Vista Project: The petitioners submitted that the government’s decision to proceed with the project was arbitrary, and lacked transparency. Some of them alleged lack of consultations with the public or adequate compliance with the environmental and cultural impacts assessment. This, they contended did not fit well with Article 14 of the Constitution which deals with the right to equality.
Example: It is very easy to think of a local government waking up one morning and decides to pull down a park and put a shopping mall without any regard to the people who use the park. This means that if the decision is taken with reference to the needs of the community and the impact on the environment it may be perceived as being rather random. The residents might want to contend that they are discriminated against in the enjoyment of their right to equality because the decision is for the interest of certain persons rather than common good.
Environmental Concerns: Argument: The petitioners vehemently relied on the environmental aspect, impacting the ecosystem due to the Central Vista Project. He and others said the environmental clearances were issued in a hurried manner with no comprehensive evaluation being made of the adverse impacts that the construction of houses, roads or other structures would have on the environment – the deterioration of air quality, depletion of green cover, and pollution of heritage sites. They said this was a direct infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution which accords everyone the right to life which comprises of the right to a clean environment.
Example: Let us assume that a factory has been constructed right in the neighborhood of residential homes without any thoughts of the effects to the environment. For instance, if the factory emits gases that are likely to affect the health of the residents, the people will have a ground to say that their right to life is being interfered with. Similarly, the reason of environmental equity was relied upon by the petitioners who averred that through polluting the environment and the health and well-being of the inhabitants of Delhi, the Central Vista Project poses a fatal risk.
Heritage Conservation: Argument: It also raised an alarm towards the aspect of historical or cultural loss to the petitioners of the Central Vista area. They relied on Article 49 concerning the protection of ‘any national monument or historic place’ by the State.
Example: Imagine a proposal to renovate a centuries-old temple or fort in a way that alters its original architecture and historical significance. Preservationists might argue that such renovations would destroy the cultural heritage of the site, making it unrecognizable. Similarly, the petitioners were concerned that the redevelopment might permanently alter the historic character of Central Vista.
Public Participation and Freedom of Expression: Argument : In its submission, the petitioners claimed that the various processes put in place by the government to approve the Central Vista Project was devoid of proper public involvement hence violating democratic principles. They argued that the government denied the public the opportunity to express themselves in line with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution on freedom of speech and expression. The petitioners had the impression that the process that had been followed should have included some efforts of openness and involvement.
Example: Suppose a local government wants to construct a highway that will pass through residential buildings and does not have to listen or even consult people living in the area on such decisions. If the residents are given the impression that the matter was decided without them being encouraged to participate or being allowed to participate, then they can claim that a right of participation was abridged. In this case, the petitioners opined that citizens were not afforded a chance to air their views on the Central Vista Project and this they found unreasonable.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The judgement of the supreme court came in January 2021. In what can be called a split verdict by a two-judge majority, the Court held that the Central Vista Project was not unlawful. The key points of the judgment are :
According to the Judgment, the court held that the government had complied with the requirement of the due process in approving the project. They said that it was not arbitrary and elaborated that the necessary public consultations had been in place.
Environmental Clearances Valid: Finally, on the question of Environmental clearance, the Court held that Environmental clearances made for the project were legal
. Heritage Conservation: Despite recognizing the need for the preservation of iron shall, the Court did not identify any infringement of Article 49. One remarked that the project proposals contained provisions for the conservation of the history and culture of the region
Public Participation: The Court concluded that the statutory right was sufficient in the circumstances and that the process provided sufficient opportunity for the public to be involved in decision making which was sufficient in respect of Article 19(1)(a).
If one considers the Central Vista Project case (Rajeev Suri v. Union of India, 2021), it is important to note that this is not the first time India’s judiciary found itself on the horns of a dilemma of development projects on one hand and citizens’ rights on the other. To understand the issues and the role of the judiciary further, this section goes into the two cases, Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) to make a comparison as how the judicial treatment has been to these matters. 1. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)
Background The Narmada Bachao Andolan was a case bearing to the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River as part of an intervention to establish control of irrigation, drinking water as well as hydroelectric power in a number of states in the Indian Union. Yet, the project encountered challenges from environment activists and Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) that claimed that the social project would lead to displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, environmental degradation and abuse of the rights of the affected communities
Key Arguments Displacement and Rehabilitation: The petitioners, particularly led by the NBA, submitted that the project imperative to displace a huge number of persons mainly belonging to the tribal groups with no satisfactory provisions for their rehabilitation and resettlement. He said that this would encroach upon the right to life as embodied under Article 21 which also includes the right to work and right to lead a healthy life. Environmental Impact: The petitioners also had issues on environment, particularly on aspects of the construction of the dam which would lead to deforestation, loss of bio – diversity, and other consequences on the eco – system of the Narmada Valley. Public Participation: Like in case of Central Vista, the petitioners opposed the concept of the project on the grounds of non-consultation and non-transparency of the process.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Finally the Supreme Court gave it’s decision in which they majority decided in favour of the company and allowed the construction of the project as the country required economic uplift and the project would help in provision of irrigation facility to millions of people as well as provision of electricity and water supply. However, the Court also imposed certain conditions: Rehabilitation: The Federal high Court made an order as follow; no further construction will be carried out in the affected area unless the displaced persons are properly rehabilitated and resettled. This was coupled with the ability to demand that any development that takes place should not be at the detriment of these rights. Environmental Safeguards: In this regard, the Court instructed that the project should be carried out in total consideration with all environmental laws and legal frameworks so as to mitigate the effects of the project on the environment. Similar to the Central Vista case, the Narmada Bachao Andolan case, included weighing the developmental need of the government with the fundamental rights of the citizens. Even as it cleared both projects, the apex Court put several conditions in place to ensure that the rights of the affected communities and the environment were protected. This goes further to demonstrate the judiciary’s anticaptives themselves and development as a process that should not be done at the expense of human rights, and /or the environment.
2. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985]
Background The Olga Tellis case popularly known as pavement dwellers case dealt with eviction of kaimewari settlers in Mumbai. The case involved thousands of peoples living on pavements and in the slum areas, the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) wanted to evict them reason being that their existence was violates municipal laws and block public passages. The petitioners, mainly represented by a journalist, Olga Tellis, opposed to the evictions on the basis of the provision of the Constitution’s Article 21 which provides for the right to life.
Key Arguments Right to Livelihood: That right to life under Article 21 constitutes the right to carry on any trade, profession, occupation, business or calling and therefore the right to livelihood. They argued that if the slum dwellers were to be evicted from their current homes and not relocated to other homes the it would amount to denying them their right to earn a living since most of them worked around the city. Human Dignity: Petitioners’ main argue as well was that evictions deprived the people of their dignity and would have them compelled into even worse existence. Due Process: The petitioners sought the intervention of the court under the premise that the notices to evict were given without adequate notice and or no procedure was followed in regard to natural justice.
SC Judgment in another landmark judgements the Supreme Court redefined interpretation of Article 21 in a broader approach. According to the above authority, the Court stated that the right to life is the right to live; it includes the right to livelihood; the government could not evict those people living on pavement without providing them shelter. Right to Livelihood: The Court was alive to the fact that the right to life enunciated in Article 21 of the constitution is not merely animal existence but meaningful existence included in is the right to live with dignity which included the right to live with the dignity of earning one’s livelihood. The ruling affirmed that the government has the responsibility to make sure that it does not eliminate the ability of citizens to provide for themselves. Protection from Arbitrary Evictions: This meant that evictions had to carried out legally; every affected person had to be given adequate notice and where necessary, rehabilitation. This decision raised the provision of the vulnerable groups from the arbitrary action of the state.
Similarity with Central Vista The facts of the Olga Tellis case were more or less similar to that of the Central Vista having a dimension involving action against the government concerning a large number of people. However, whereas the Central Vista case was more a matter of public interest, environment, and heritage conservation, not to mention princely petitions, the Olga Tellis case was in essence a question of the constitutional rights of the most basic, the poor, to life with dignity.
In all these cases, the Supreme Court of India has endeavored to ensure that even while the government is in the process of making an effort to achieve development, it does so in a way that respects the rights of citizens, the environment, and preserves the nation’s heritage. These cases indeed reiterate that there cannot be development at the cost of these values—of justice, equality, and human dignity—and further, courts have a role very important in this direction
Conclusion
The Central Vista judgment denotes the role of courts in balancing development and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has strongly reiterated the decision that openness, protection of the environment, and conservation of heritage are some important requisites when any state-led project is going on. While holding the legality of the project by enforcing safeguards, it has once again asserted the principle that progress should not be at the cost of justice and citizens’ rights; development must conform to constitutional values and democratic principles.
Reference
The concept of judicial review in light of the case of Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. September 18, 2021
Shailaja Mehta Unravelling The Central Vista Judgment: Democratic Due Process And Judicial Review
Comments