Earlier this month, when the second wave of Covid-19 had dug its claws deep into Delhi and thousands were falling ill, running from one hospital to another seeking oxygen and medical care, the government of India set a deadline for an ‘essential service’? The grand new home for the Prime Minister was to be completed by December 2022, reported NDTV. This is part of the grand Central Vista Redevelopment Project, which is still underway, even though ‘no photography’ signs have been put up, clearly to keep away the media, as the city remains under lockdown because Covid-19 pandemic continues to rage.

Most activities, including construction etc have effectively been halted. However this vast ₹ 20,000 crore e Central Vista Redevelopment Project, has designated an “essential service” and construction work here goes on, even as the Covid-hit national capital still awaits enough vaccine doses to inoculate its adult population. 

Activists, academicians, art historians, and Opposition leaders have once again raised their voices against this ‘vanity’ project and urged the government pause, or scrap this plan which clearly does not seem “essential” when the health infrastructure seems to be in a fragile condition. Reportedly, the “projected cost for the new buildings is 13,450 crore rupees.” It is likely to change not just the visual, but also the essence of the iconic stretch of road that holds a special place in the hearts of all those who have lived, or even visited Delhi. It is beyond a tourist stop over, and for decades, was once the hub, especially in the evenings for families to congregate on the vast lawns, or walk up to hill leading to the regal Rashtrapati Bhawan or Presidential Palace, and on January 26 watch the Republic Day parade, live or on TV. This was the essence of ‘New Delhi’ recognised all over the world.

However, after security concerns rendered most of these places out of bounds for the common public, it is the re-development work that has been most shocking, especially its timing in the middle of the pandemic. As reported by the art news site Hyperallergic.com, the project will mean the “demolition and relocation of iconic Indian institutions: the National Museum of India, the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), and the National Archives Annexe.”

This has once again led to around 100 historians, artists, academics, and museum professionals to issue a statement seeking “an immediate halt” to the project. They say the project is “moving ahead in the midst of a devastating pandemic, endangering workers, and squandering scarce resources that could be used to save lives.” The group has also drawn “particular attention to the upcoming demolition and relocation of the National Museum of India, the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), and the National Archives Annexe.” They say that when these buildings, and area were first planned, “there was a clear logic in the urban planning of Delhi to keeping these cultural, archival and historical centres in close proximity to each other. The National Museum, in particular, has historical value and requires renovation and augmentation, not demolition. The rushed destruction of these structures will cause irrevocable harm to world-renowned institutions that have been painstakingly built over decades.”

The Central Vista demolition also “threatens the collections of these heritage repositories,” and the signatories have expressed their concerns “that such a shift would impact the state of conservation of several objects. Even under normal circumstances, it would be a complex and risky operation to shift the diverse and irreplaceable treasures of the National Museum, the archival records held in the National Archives, and the manuscript holdings of the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts. The current pandemic only exacerbates these risks.”

They added that “unilateral and hasty implementation of the Central Vista Redevelopment Project runs contrary to established practices worldwide. Across the globe, such plans to expand, relocate, repurpose or redesign key cultural institutions are preceded by widespread consultations and consensus building before finalizing the design, let alone moving collections indefinitely.” The letter also highlights the lack of transparency stating that “the details of the Central Vista demolition are opaque. It is unclear, for example, how the National Museum art objects will be stored and eventually displayed in the office complex of the North and South Blocks, as is planned. As the National Museum’s collection still lacks a complete inventory of its holdings, this relocation is hazardous. The extent to which these collections will continue to be publicly accessible is also unknown.”

They say that due to the escalating health crisis it is right to “pause and a reset” and that the “this project should be immediately suspended,” even for a short term, so “all priorities and resources directed to combating the pandemic”. However, in the long term, they say that there should be “extensive public consultations so that the future of India’s institutions, heritage architecture, and historical collections can be determined through a democratic process.” 

The signatories includes subject experts such as: Naman Ahuja, Jawaharlal Nehru University; Ernst van Alphen, Leiden University; Sean Anderson, Museum of Modern Art, New York; Arjun Appadurai, New York University; Catherine Asher, University of Minnesota (emerita); Frederick M. Asher, University of Minnesota (emeritus); Rohit De, Yale University; Sussan Babaie, Courtauld Institute of Art, London; Homi Bhabha, Harvard University; Sugata Bose, Harvard University. Artists Arpana Caur, G. M. Sheikh, Nilima Sheikh, Dayanita Singh, Vivan Sundaram, Sir Anish Kapoor; Architect Prem Chandavarkar; art historians Annapurna Garimella, Narayani Gupta, Navina Najat Haidar. Writers, Orhan Pamuk, Githa Hariharan, Ramachandra Guha, Geeta Kapur, Filmmaker and environmentalist Pradip Krishen and many others.

Hyperallergic reports from a CNN interview of Bimal Patel of HCP, the architectural firm chosen for the redevelopment, calling the project “a much-needed overhaul of facilities unfit to meet growing needs”. Patel said, “We need space for dining, we need to create toilets, we need to create storage space, and office and administration space — it’s very clear that it can’t be done in the space available.” Author and  urban historian Narayani Gupta, who lives in Delhi told Hyperallergic, “Now you’ll have this landscape of three official houses, two secretariats which will be turned into museums, and then a series of extremely dull buildings going right up to the War Memorial Arch… there is a kind of ring of security that will take away from the sense of it being a public space — the green lawns, the trees, the informal spaces that were created, and which the people created.”

Related: 

SC directs early hearing for plea against Central Vista, matter back in Delhi HC

Why did J. Sanjiv Khanna dissent from the Central Vista majority judgment?

Ex-bureaucrats miffed over Central Vista project, write open letter to PM

The post How is the Central Vista Project an essential service? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court has allowed petitioners to make request for early listing of the plea challenging the Central Vista project construction before the Delhi High Court.

The bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said, “We hope and trust that upon such request being made, the High Court would consider the same appropriately and pass necessary orders.”

The petitioners Anya Malhotra and Sohail Hashmi had earlier approached the Delhi High Court but the matter was adjourned to May 17 without having issued notice. Thus, the petitioner s came before the Supreme Court with the grievance that the adjournment was long and the matter was urgent.

“I really cannot understand how a construction can be an essential activity when we have a health emergency…it is endangering lives of workers… putting pressure on the health system”, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued on behalf of the petitioners.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said “there seems to be some interest operating” while pointing out that a PIL was filed and SLP is filed against adjournment raises questions.

The court refused to delve into the question of petitioners’ credentials and also refused to look into the merits of the case as the high court is seized of the matter.

“since according to Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, there is an extreme urgency in the matter, we give liberty to Shri Siddharth Luthra, to either himself, or through any other counsel on behalf of the present petitioners, make a request before the Chief Justice of the High Court on Monday i.e. 10.05.2021 to take up the matter at an early date,” the bench said in its order.

The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of.

The order may be read here:

Related:

We want 700 MT of oxygen supplied to Delhi every day and we mean business: SC to Centre

Siddique Kappan “secretly” discharged from AIIMS, taken to Mathura jail 

Delhi HC directs tele calling, video calls, Covid vaccination for Tihar jail inmates

SC greenlights Central Vista project, decision split 2:1 

The post SC directs early hearing for plea against Central Vista, matter back in Delhi HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court’s green signal to the Central Vista Project was not unanimous as Justice Sanjiv Khanna provided his own judgment on matters of public participation on interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee.

He said, “Since I have reservations with the opinion expressed by my esteemed brother A.M. Khanwilkar, J. on the aspects of public participation on interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee, I have penned down a separate dissenting judgment.”

However, he did agree with the majority judgment on a few aspects and noted, “On notice inviting bid, award of consultancy and the order of the Urban Arts Commission, as a standalone and independent order, I respectfully agree with the final conclusions in the judgment authored by respected brother A.M. Khanwilkar J.”

Let us now have a closer look on the grounds on which Justice Khanna dissented.

Public Consultation of the Development Plan

Justice Khanna referred to sections 7 to 11-A of the Delhi Development Act and Rules 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules which provides a detailed procedure for preparation, modification of a Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plans in Delhi.

Every local authority within whose limit any land, as per the plan, is situated, is to be given a reasonable opportunity to make representation and only on considering all representations, suggestions and objections, the Delhi Development Authority, can go ahead with a final plan and submit it to the Central government for its approval.

For instance, Rule 4 of the Development Plan lays down the draft plan which is to consist of such maps, diagrams, charts, reports, and other written matter of explanatory or descriptive nature as pertained to the development of whole or any part of Delhi. It also elucidates the form and contents of the draft Master Plan to be made public to invite objections, suggestions and representations. Justice Khanna found discrepancies in the entire process.

He said that the mere uploading of the gazette notification explaining the present and the proposed land use with plot numbers was not sufficient. He stressed on the importance of public participation in the entire process of coming up with a developmental plan to enable them to have an informed voice in the process.

After noting that there was serious lapse and failure, he further said, “Intelligible and adequate disclosure was critical given the nature of the proposals which would affect the iconic and historical Central Vista. The citizenry clearly had the right to know intelligible details explaining the proposal to participate and express themselves, give suggestions and submit objections. The proposed changes, unlike policy decisions, would be largely irreversible. Physical construction or demolition once done, cannot be undone or corrected for future by repeal, amendment or modification as in case of most policies or even enactments.”

Centre defaulted on suggestions

According to due process, sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act provides that the Central government which is the competent authority shall make alterations to the Master Plan once its established that those alterations are needed to be made. Incases of minor modifications, the Delhi Development Authority(DDA)is the competent authority to take charge as per sub-section (1) of Section 11A.

So, according to the modifications, the appropriate competent authority has to consider the objections and suggestions and thereafter notify the proposed modification in entirety or in part. But the minority judgment noted that in the present case, the Central government had issued a notification dated March 20, 2020, approving the proposal exercising power under sub-section (2) to Section11A, but actually relying upon sub-section (1) to Section 11A.

So, the procedure for modification that was followed was the one applicable to modifications under sub-section (1) to Section 11-A and not sub-section (2) making the DDA the competent authority and not the Centre. Justice Khanna further noted that following the “fatal failure to follow the procedure prescribed under sub-section (2) to section 11A of the Development Act”, in the written submissions filed by the respondents, a different version has been given in the list of dates and events.

The written submission stated that the Land & Development Officer (L&DO) applied its mind to the objections and suggestions on February 6, 2020 and that the L&DO and the Central government are one and the same.Justice Khanna, however, noted that the public hearing was slated on February 6 and February 7 so he wondered how L&DO applied his mind even before the public hearing was over.

He also noted that the list of dates was not supported by an affidavit on record. “It would be hypothetical and incongruous to accept that L&DO had applied its mind to the objections and suggestions even before the public hearing, and therefore, the court should assume that the Central Government had considered the objections and suggestions. Final decision must be conscientiously and objectively taken by the competent authority post the hearing. This plea must be rejected, as the public hearing was slated on 6th and 7th of February 2020,” he said.

No reasonable time provided

Justice Khanna also noted the violation of section 45 of the Delhi Development Act which provides that any notice or order relevant to the act shall specify a reasonable time. Hence, the judge said, “There is violation of the Section 45 as public notice of hearing fixed on February 6 and 7, 2020 was issued by way of public notice dated February 3, 2020 published on February 5, 2020. SMS and email were issued at the last moment. Lack of reasonable time, therefore, prevented the persons who had filed objections and given suggestions to present and appear orally state their point of view.”

Heritage Conservation Committee disapproval

This aspect was discussed by Justice Khanna at length, noting that that Technical Committee of the Authority in its meeting held on December 5,2019 while examining the proposal hadstated that steps would be taken to seek approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee.

However,“However Heritage Conservation Committee was never moved to secure approval/permission. No approval/permission has been taken.” He noted that the Government in their written submissions had stated that the permission or approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee “would be sought as and when the stage reaches for the same as the same may not be pre-requisite for the purposes of change in land use.”

The use of the term ‘may’ itself represented the doubt in the mind of the Government (respondents) according to Justice Khanna, whereas the Technical Committee had not expressed any doubts and was firm that approval or clearance from the Heritage Conservation Committee is “mandatory and required”.

The respondents contended that the construction of the new Parliament being on a vacant plot adjacent to the existing Parliament building does not require approval/no objection from the Heritage Conservation Committee. But Justice Khanna observed otherwise. He held, “Neither this Court nor government including local bodies can answer these questions. Central Government could not have notified the modified the land use changes, without following the procedure and without prior approval/permission from the Heritage Conservation Committee. Further, the local body is expressly interdicted from issuing building permits in respect of the listed heritage buildings/precincts. The local body i.e., NDMC should have approached the Heritage Conservation Committee for clarification/confirmation and proceed on their advice.”

Environmental Clearance

The dissenting judgment also pointed at the lack of discussion, reasons or even the conclusion or finding on the aspect of slicing or inclusion. The Judge raise his disappointment at the Expert Appraisal Committee’s (EAC) order dated April 22, 2020 granting clearance to the Project. He said, “EAC acts both as a fair investigator and an independent objective adjudicator when deciding whether or not to grant environmental clearance. There must be application of mind which is reflected when reasons justifying the conclusion are recorded. Mere reproduction of the contesting stands is not sufficient. On the contrary it would reflect mechanical grant without application of mind.”

Justice Sanjiv Khanna also rejected the contention that the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 does not require giving reasons when environment clearance is granted. He referred to Gau Raxa Hit raxak Manch v. Union of India(2013) SCC Online NGT 85, that held that the apprising body, which includes EAC as well as the Ministry,has to make categorical recommendations to the regulatory authority either for grant of clearance or rejection, together with reasons for the same.

Any order passed by the EAC are subject to appeal before the National Green Tribunal. The appellate forum would not be able to decipher and adjudicate unless reasons are set out and stated in the order under challenge. Justice Khanna said that the whole purpose of outsourcing the task to EAC, comprised of experts and specialists, is to have a proper evaluation on the basis of some objective criteria. EAC is a body that has to apply its collective mind and not to record conclusions. It must justify and give basis for its conclusions, which in this case, did not happen.

While concluding, he said that the petitioners challenging the project are not completely averse to the idea of partial and regulated redevelopment for functionality and that the Central Vista and Parliament House is a heritage site that belongs to the Nation and the people. “Their primary grievance is lack of information and details”, he noted.

A legacy of Dissent

Interestingly, Justice Sanjiv Khanna is the nephew of the late Justice Hans Raj Khanna, a former Supreme Court judge who was the sole dissenting voice in the Emergency case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521, in which he held that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed during an Emergency.

On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court while declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right, overruled the ADM Jabalpur decision and corrected a historical blunder recognising the stature of Justice H.R Khanna.

In his autobiography titled Neither Roses Nor Thorns, he wrote that before the pronouncement of the judgment he along with his family went to Haridwar. While sitting on the banks of river Ganga, he told his sister, “‘I have prepared the judgment which is going to cost me the Chief Justiceship of India”, which ultimately was true as Justice MH Beg superseded him in 1977.

The judgment may be read here: 

Related:

SC greenlights Central Vista project, decision split 2:1

Central Vista Project: SC bars Centre from construction, allows paperwork and foundation stone ceremony

Withdraw hasty Environment Clearance to Central Vista Project: NAPM

The post Why did J. Sanjiv Khanna dissent from the Central Vista majority judgment? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the first landmark ruling of the year 2021, a three judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari with Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s dissent, has given a go ahead to New Delhi’s Central Vista Project, reported Bar & Bench.

It rejected several petitions that challenged the scheme for alleged violation of land use and environmental standards. The majority judgement that was authored by Justice Khanwilkar and on behalf of Justice Maheshwari held that the exercise of the power under the Delhi Development Authority Act was ‘just and valid’ and that the grant of environmental clearances by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change was also ‘valid and proper’.

Justice Khanwilkar read out, “Selection and appointment of environmental consultant in the case is held to be just and proper. Modifications regarding change in land use stand confirmed.” Very importantly, Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented from this opinion on the point of change of land use associated with the project emphasising that prior approval of the heritage committee was required when it came to change in land use.

However, he agreed with his fellow judges on the award of the project. He said, “I have agreed with brother judge, Justice Khanwilkar on notice inviting bid and award of project. However, on the question of grant of change of land use, I have a different opinion. I have held that the same was bad in law. There was no prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and thus matter is remitted back for public hearing. On the environmental clearance aspect, it was a non-speaking order.”

This ambitious project envisages an entire revamp of the parliament building that is to be constructed by August 2022, when the country will be celebrating its 75th Independence Day. The project also covers the three-km stretch from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate in Lutyens’ Delhi.

The petitioners had challenged a notification issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on December 21, 2019 regarding changes in land use for the redevelopment before the Supreme Court. This notification allowed the construction of a new Parliament building and other projects under the umbrella of the Central Vista project.

The petitioners claimed in their plea that the DDA did not have the authority to bring about such changes in land use. In addition to the point of land use, Ms. Meena Gupta, a former Secretary of Ministry of Environment and Forests, also filed an intervention application in the pending case highlighting environmental concerns due to the redevelopment.

Before the court, the Government represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had contended that the construction of a new Parliament building and Central Secretariat have become an absolute necessity due to the stress on the present ones. He had also submitted that the current Parliament building, which was opened in 1927, does not adhere to fire safety norms, has a serious space crunch, and is not earthquake-proof. He also cited security concerns, highlighting the 2001 Parliament attack.

The top court heard arguments till the first week of November reserving its judgment on November 5, 2020. With the green signal of the court, the Gujarat-based architecture firm HCP Designs that won the consultancy bid for the project to redevelop the entire Central Vista Project, may start work soon. On the other hand, Tata Projects Limited that won the bid to construct the new parliament building at a cost of Rs 861.90 crore in September, 2019 may also begin work.

According to the Economic Times, the HCP Designs will prepare the master plan of the project, including designs, cost estimation, landscape and traffic integration plans, and parking facilities among others. HPC designs that is led by architect Bimal Patel, has developed several projects, including the Sabarmati Riverfront Development, the Central Vista at Gandhinagar and the Mumbai Port Complex.

Related:

Central Vista Project: SC bars Centre from construction, allows paperwork and foundation stone ceremony

Withdraw hasty Environment Clearance to Central Vista Project: NAPM

The post SC greenlights Central Vista project, decision split 2:1  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Former civil servants have written a harshly worded letter to PM Narendra Modi on the expenditure being made on the Central vista redevelopment project. They have questioned the rationale behind the government’s “pursuit of pomp and grandeur” even as the country is battling with COVID-19 pandemic which has affected lives and livelihoods of millions in India.

The former central and state government civil servants, about 69 of them, state that they are a part of ‘Constitutional Conduct Group’. In their open letter that have expressed their displeasure over the manner in which the project is being carried out in complete disregard for rule of law and demonstrates “executive highhandedness”. The signatories include Meeran C Borwankar IPS (Retd.); Madhu Bhaduri IFS (retd.), Anand Arni R&AW (Retd.) and 66 others

The letter, calling the project a monumental ambition, states that the project has taken precedence over improving public health infrastructure which has taken a hit during the pandemic and which is currently the need of the hour.

“Whether it was in inviting design options, selecting consultants, holding fair and transparent stakeholder consultations, obtaining approvals of the institutions and authorities dealing with urban design, planning and environmental clearances – everything was done to ensure that rules and procedures were given short shrift, due processes treated with contempt and a predetermined plan of action bulldozed through,” states the letter.

The letter points out what many critics of the project have been pointing towards, that the matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court whereby the court had demanded an undertaking from the government that no action would be taken before it gave its final orders. In fact, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta undertook on behalf of the government that no construction, demolition or cutting of trees will be carried out. The court had however, allowed the Centre to proceed with the paperwork of the project and the foundation stone laying ceremony of the proposed new Parliament building.

The letter also points out “constitutional impropriety” on the part of the Prime Minister as he laid the foundation stone for the Parliament building being head of the executive and not the legislature.

The letter also states that “the tearing hurry on the part of the government to execute the project is reflected by the different figures it has given to various government agencies on the number of trees cut for the purpose.” They have asked for the plans to be redrawn to be compatible with environmental and heritage conservation standards.

The letter concludes by stating that the project should be subjected to critical scrutiny by citizens and independent experts.

Related:

Central Vista Project: SC bars Centre from construction, allows paperwork and foundation stone ceremony

Farmers leaders dismiss false claims of the central government

Jhooth BJP Jhooth! Yell supporters of the farmers’ struggle

The post Ex-bureaucrats miffed over Central Vista project, write open letter to PM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 On December 7, the Supreme Court clarified that the Central Government cannot go ahead with the construction, demolition of any structure, including felling of trees in relation to the Central Vista Project that envisages the construction of a new additional Parliament building and a revamp of Rajpath including the South and North blocks of the Central Secretariat.

However, the top court Bench allowed the Centre to proceed with the paperwork of the project and the foundation stone laying ceremony of the proposed new Parliament building on December 10.

The matter was listed before a three-judge Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna for directions after the Bench noticed some developments in the public domain. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre.

The Indian Express had reported on December 6, that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi will lay its foundation stone on December 10 and that the grand ceremony will be attended by leaders and representatives of all parties who will be present physically or via virtual mode.

According to LiveLaw, the court rebuked the Centre for its “aggressive” pace with its ambitious project despite the matter of its legality being sub-judice. Justice A.M Khanwilkar remarked, “We thought we are dealing with a prudent litigant and deference will be shown. Just because there is no stay it does not mean that you can go ahead with everything.”

Also, there were reports last week of cutting down trees and removing structures in connection with the Central Vista project, that the Bench took note of. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apprised the court that he will get instructions from the Government, seeking time till tomorrow but the court insisted that he get back today itself.

The court reiterated to the SG, “We have shown deference to you and expected that you will act in a prudent manner. The same deference should be shown to the Court and there should be no demolition or construction.”

As further reported by LiveLaw, the SG got back to the Bench and said, “My sincere apologies to the Lordships. I can make a statement that there will be no construction, demolition or felling of trees. Foundation stone will be laid. But, no physical change.”

The court recorded the SG’s statements and said, “This matter was listed suo moto and after interacting with SG, the Court is making the order. The SG has made the statement that there will be no construction or demolition on the concerned sites, or translocation of trees; this will also be kept in abeyance. List the SG’s statement on record. We clarify in view of the above that the authorities will be free to undertake other formal processes without altering the site in any manner, including continuing with a scheduled programme of foundation stone on 10th December.”

Background

The petitioners had challenged a notification issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on December 21, 2019 regarding changes in land use for the redevelopment before the Supreme Court. The notification paved the way for the construction of a new Parliament building and other projects in the prestigious Central Vista project. The petitioners have claimed in their plea that the DDA does not have the authority to bring about such changes in land use.

Ms. Meena Gupta, a former Secretary of Ministry of Environment and Forests, had filed an intervention application in the pending case highlighting environmental concerns due to the redevelopment.

During the November 2 hearing before the apex court, the Solicitor General argued that the construction of a new Parliament building and Central Secretariat have become an absolute necessity due to the stress on the present ones. He had also submitted that the current Parliament building, which was opened in 1927, does not adhere to fire safety norms, has a serious space crunch, and is not earthquake-proof.

According to Bar and Bench, he said, “There is an imminent need to have a new Parliament building. The current building was built in 1927 prior to independence and was intended to house the legislative council and not a bicameral legislature we have today. The building does not conform to fire safety norms and water and sewer lines are also haphazard which is damaging the heritage nature of the building. Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are packed. When joint sessions are held, members sit on plastic chairs diminishing the dignity of the House.”

The Government has also cited security concerns, highlighting the 2001 Parliament attack and that all necessary approvals including environmental clearances were in place and the project cannot be scrapped merely because the petitioners felt a better process or method could have been adopted.

Related:

Withdraw hasty Environment Clearance to Central Vista Project: NAPM

The post Central Vista Project: SC bars Centre from construction, allows paperwork and foundation stone ceremony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The hasty and sudden clearance granted to the ‘much-hyped’ Central Vista Project, despite a lot of objections from environmentalists, historians and concerned citizens has been sharply criticised by the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM). Based on the EAC’s recommendations dated April 22, MoEF & CC granted Conditional Environmental Clearance for the construction of a new additional Parliament building, which is a part of the ambitious Rs 20,000 crore Central Vista Project. That the serious objections raised in the 1300 submissions to EAC have not been adequately considered is a sad reflection of the state of environmental governance at the highest levels! 

The Central Vista Project envisages a ‘revamp’ of the entire 3-km long Rajpath, including South and North blocks of Central Secretariat and also the Parliament House of India. This revamp also entails that the North and South Block would be converted into museums and many critical offices like Krishi Bhavan, Nirman, Bhavan, Vignan Bhavan may have to be demolished. The proposal is to construct a new 900-seater Parliament building by July 2022 and a common Central Secretariat by March 2024.

Dubbing the entire project as wasteful expenditure, the NAPM in its statement stated that it “will be projected as yet another patriotic prop before the 2024 elections!” The Gujarat-based architecture firm HCP Design, Planning and Management Private Limited has been given tender for the Project. In fact, in a recent letter addressed to the Prime Minister and the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Minister, around 60 retired bureaucrats have expressed serious concerns regarding the selection of the consultant architect and have said, “a hastily drafted and inappropriate tender was rushed through in record time to select an architectural firm in what was an extremely flawed process”. Akin to ‘PM Cares’, which is shrouded in secrecy, the Central Vista Project is yet another mammoth project which conceals more than it reveals ! 

There are multiple legal challenges to the Project that are still pending adjudication in the Delhi High Court and the Apex Court on the grounds that the Project would lead to illegal change in land use and that it contravenes the Delhi Master Plan-2021 of ‘decentralizing the government offices in the national capital’. The legal tenability is also questioned on the plank that when the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) already invited objections to the proposal vide Notice dated December 19, 2019 and the same was challenged in the SC, a fresh notice dated March 20, 2020 could not have been issued by DDA, and that the same would tantamount to ‘interference in the administration of justice’. It is contended that if the project is implemented, the green cover in thee Central Vista of Lutyens’ Delhi would decrease from the existing 86% to 9% and of the 105 acres of the Central Vista, at least 90 acres is classified as public, semi-public district parks and neighbourhood play areas.

The statement also states that the Central Vista Project also violates provisions of the 2003 UNESCO Declaration concerning the ‘Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage’, to which India as a member state, is a signatory. In fact, what is not widely known is that an earlier proposal by the UPA Govt. in January 2014 to UNESCO to grant World Heritage Site status to “Delhi’s Imperial Capital Cities” was ‘withdrawn’ by the Modi Govt, without specifying any reason. It is not hard to understand why, since this regime did not want any questioning of the mindless tinkering of heritage sites of historical value by the world body.

Finally, the NAPM express its grave concern at the numerous recent moves of the Govt of India to dilute pro-people, pro-environment legislation and push forth massive projects that are detrimental to national interest. Instead of investing in robust public health infrastructure, amidst the worst pandemic, the nation-wide ‘lockdown’ is being used as an opportunity to ‘clear’ many controversial projects. It is alarming that the environment, forest and wildlife clearance process for as many as 191 large-scale mining, infrastructure and industrial projects is underway through ‘video-meetings’ of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) where many projects are considered in a time-span of just about ’10 minutes’!

The NAPM statement also states that the EAC and MoEF have a long history of rushing through decisions on such mammoth projects, even when objections are not objectively considered and litigation is pending, to create a situation of “fait accompli’’! Although many such ‘mega-infrastructure’ projects are hugely damaging the environment, enviro-legal safeguard mechanisms and authorities have been failing to defend the law of the land. It is indeed unfortunate that in a recent hearing, even the Supreme Court did not consider the matter “urgent enough” to be heard during lockdown, despite many serious objections and the fact that the Project would potentially and irreversibly change the whole landscape of the area.

The NAPM demands that the MoEF must immediately withdraw the questionable clearance granted to the Central Vista Project. If indeed ‘PMCARES’, the Govt of India must shelve this Project permanently and the huge corpus of Rs. 20,000 crores must instead be diverted to the Ministry of Health to strengthen public health infrastructure.

The post Withdraw hasty Environment Clearance to Central Vista Project: NAPM appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A group of retired civil servants have written an open letter to the Prime Minister urging a reconsideration of the proposal to redevelop the Central Vista, a historical precinct built during the British Raj in New Delhi.

The group that claims to have no particular political ideology write, “The Central Vista area has been accorded Grade 1 heritage status under the extant Unified Building Bye Laws of Delhi. Construction and redesign on the scale planned in the redevelopment project will significantly affect the heritage nature of this precinct, and destroy it irrevocably.”

The letter goes on to say, “This precinct is at the core of the congested capital of Delhi, and acts as the lungs of the city, with its dense mature tree canopies serving as a repository of bio diversity and the vast lawns of the Vista as a watershed for the city between the Ridge and the Yamuna. Constructing a large number of multi-storeyed office buildings, with basements, in this open area will create congestion and irreversibly change and damage the environment.”

It further says, “Families throng the area on summer nights to sit around in the open air and enjoy the occasional icecream – innocent and inexpensive pleasures which they will be deprived of once the Vista’s character undergoes a change.”

The retired civil servants also question the process by which the project was greenlighted saying, “There was no Parliamentary debate or discussion that preceded the decisions taken. Moreover, the redevelopment plans were not substantiated by any public consultation or expert review. Instead a hastily drafted and inappropriate tender was rushed through in record time to select an architectural firm in what was an extremely flawed process. The selected architectural firm appears to have been given carte blanche to make whatever changes it wishes, with all government departments seemingly mandated to do whatever is required to enable the firm’s actions. The selection of the firm and the processes employed to do so leave a lot of questions unanswered.”

The entire letter may be read here: 

The post Retired civil servants write to PM advising against redeveloping Central Vista appeared first on SabrangIndia.