[Central Vista] 'Constitution Envisages Representative Democracy Not Participative":SG Tushar Mehta Tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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."We Are Not Spending Money; We are Saving Money", Submits SG In Central Vista Matter On Tuesday, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta commenced his submissions on the challenge to the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi. In the pre-lunch hearing, the SG, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, submitted to the Court that he was not seeing the issue as an adversarial litigation, but would like to assist the Court. "The Central Government welcomes scrutiny of the Supreme Court. But, considering the history of the place where the redevelopment is happening, the Centre should be allowed some leeway", stated the SG. SG emphasized on the stand that the important decision which was taken was on the construction of the Parliament complex and the Central Secretariat; these could not be built at Gurgaon, Panipat or Noida, and had to be at Central Vista. It was also submitted that the old buildings were dilapidated and there was an urgent need to shift the offices. In response to the submissions that had been made by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, the SG stated that India did not embody the concept of participatory democracy and was a representative democracy. "Participatory democracy is a Utopian idea. If we go wrong, we have the Supreme Court in place to us and tell us what to do", remarked the SG. SG also informed the Bench that when it came to constructing monuments such as the India Gate, War Memorial etc., design competitions were held as the monuments were purely ornamental and had no function. However, for the Parliament and Central Secratariat, concept competitions were held. It was further submitted to the Bench that an impression had been created that the project was a greenfield project and that that would not be a case. It was also submitted that the Delhi Urban Art Commission Act bestowed powers on a statutory body which had raised objects and rejected the proposal first. However, after changes were made and the project was reconsidered, was the go-ahead given; this showed application of mind. SG then highlighted the reasons why a new building was needed as periodic changes to the current Parliament building which had led to seepage and destroyed the heritage nature of the building. "There are no fire safety norms or earthquake safety measures. There is a need for a new building because with increase in representation, the allocation of seats has also been increased. The current Parliament building was built in 1927 prior to Independence and was intended to house Legislative Council and not the Bicameral Legislature that we have today". SG then submitted that both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were packed, and when joint sessions were held, members were forced to sit on plastic chairs, thereby diminishing the dignity of the House. Further, the situation was even more embarrassing for the Central Secretariat. SG stated, "People are asking why thousands of crores are being spent. This is not spending money, but this saving money". The ease of connectivity from one Ministry to another was also referred to by the SG – "North Block and South Block are spread across 90 acres and it is a complete waste of space. A person from one Ministry has to travel to another. The new building will house everything". The SG then stated that a provision for interlinking of metro stations was also taking place which would minimize the use of two and four wheelers. The policy decision was that all Central ministries would be at one place and that one place would have historical significance. This would also allay the concerns of the Petitioners regarding environmental protection as it would be an integrated project which would enable efficient management of space/efficient governance and vehicular movement would be minimized. The SG submitted that the government was coming up with an iconic project and would ensure that care was taken and laws were not violated; they had a responsibility. The Bench, at this juncture, informed the SG that the note submitted by the Central Government did not include what was intended to be done during the construction activities and there was bound to be environmental issues. SG responded that the same would be revised. The Bench asked the SG if it could be said that the...

[Central Vista] 'Constitution Envisages Representative Democracy Not Participative":SG Tushar Mehta Tells Supreme Court

Mehal Jain & Radhika Roy

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain & Radhika Roy

[Central Vista] 'Constitution Envisages Representative Democracy Not Participative":SG Tushar Mehta Tells Supreme Court

Mehal Jain & Radhika Roy

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain & Radhika Roy

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers