[Central Vista Case] Decision Making Process Totally Opaque; Values Of Transparency Overlooked : Shyam Divan In Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday resumed hearing on the challenge to the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjeev Khanna had earlier decided to hear the challenge on 3 issues, vis-à-vis change of land use, violations of municipal law, violations of environmental law. Subsequently, the Court disposed off the petitions challenging change in land use of plot number 1 of the Central Vista Project, adding that it will be taken up at a later stage as the decision on its usage had not yet been taken by the Government. On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan drew the bench's attention to yet another representation to the government by a well-known architect for holding an open competition among architects for choosing the best concept and design for such a prestigious project. Yesterday, he had taken the court through the representations made by the Council of Architecture and the Indian Institute of Architects (IIA). He also indicated a press note released by the IIA, Northern Chapter, averring that any development in such a sensitive zone is to be planned in a holistic manner and that "the methodology of selection of the lowest bidder is akin to a supplier of goods". "They wrote that the unseemly haste with which the government is proceeding shall bring about disastrous consequences- an unmitigated cultural and environmental disaster" "None of these representations received any response! The CPWD is going ahead with the current course of things...", remarked Mr. Diwan. "So the emphasis on prior consultation, open design competition, objection to the lowest bidder auction is common in all the representations?', asked Justice Khanwilkar. "All the objections are anchored to the global best practice, which is the established norm...it is important for the deepening of democracy in India and the value-based system that we follow", replied the senior advocate. "Yes, open competition is the global best practice", agreed Justice Khanwilkar. Mr. Diwan indicated, by way of examples, that for the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, conceptualised in 1986-89, an open single stage global design competition was held, where over 120 bids were received. For the Parliament Library, in 1989, a national design competition was conducted. And most recently,for the National War Memorial and Museum in 2016, a two-stage open global design competition was held where over 400 bids were received. "So in Lutyen's Central Vista zone, this has been the norm. In stark contrast to this is the Central Vista redevelopment project, where a Quality Cost Based Selection (QCBS) Tender system has been employed...", explained Mr. Diwan. Perusing the documents submitted by the petitioner, Justice Khanna asked, "For the War Memorial, it says that all the wining designs were rejected by the Delhi Urban Arts Commission?" Mr. Diwan assured that he shall revert to the court as to what the stage of the project is. "Is there any particular reason for giving us the names of the members of the statutory authorities which grant approvals?', asked Justice Khanwilkar. Mr. Diwan replied in the negative. "The bid document states that they are creating a legacy for 150-200 years. But the time-lines provided clearly don't support this...Your Lordships said that the court can't go into whether 21 days are provided and whether it is enough as it is a policy matter. But is this a tender for a marriage hall or something much more profound and firm? They are acting as the trustee of a public trust here!", he continued. "It was a 7-week process. As per the pre-bid meeting, 24 bidders had participated. A total of 6 bids were received. After the technical bids, presentations were to be made on approach and methodology to a jury whose composition is not known. Ultimately, 4 were selected for the financial bids. The tender was awarded to H1 Bidder 'APC Designs' at 229 crores", submitted Mr. Diwan. "Did any of these 24 participants mention about the short time-lines? We'll take note of it here itself", asked Justice Khanwilkar. "Yes. At least 10 said we need more time. Alteast 10 sought 2-3 weeks or 3-4 weeks more time. They said they need more time to work out the approach and methodology and the vision and the master plan", replied Mr. Diwan. "And in response, the government asked them to see the corrigendum by virtue of which an extension of 1 week was given? So they asked for 3-4 weeks but were given only 1 more week?", observed Justice Khanwilkar. Continuing, Mr. Diwan contended, "This is the Parliament, Surely, after so many years, they must show to the public what studies preceded the NIT? But there are no studies in the public domain at all! Perhaps there were secret studies!". He indicated the November 8, 2019 Proposed...

[Central Vista Case] Decision Making Process Totally Opaque; Values Of Transparency Overlooked : Shyam Divan In Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

Tags