The Central Vista redevelopment project in India, which includes the construction of a new Parliament building, has been shrouded in legal challenges and controversies since its announcement in September 2019. The project aims to transform the nation’s power corridor, including the central secretariat and the iconic Rajpath. However, it has faced consistent scrutiny, with disputes reaching the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. This article examines the major legal battles and controversies surrounding the Central Vista redevelopment project.
In 2020, the project faced its first legal hurdle when individuals filed a case challenging the grant of Environmental Clearance and other approvals. The high court’s single judge bench directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to seek court approval before making any changes to the Master Plan. However, the government appealed the order, and a division bench of the high court stayed the directive.
In March 2020, the Supreme Court transferred the case from the Delhi High Court, citing “larger public interest.” Following extensive hearings, in January 2021, the court delivered a majority verdict in favor of the project. The majority upheld the grant of environmental clearance and land use permissions, emphasizing that the court should not interfere with policy matters. However, a dissenting judge raised concerns about the lack of prior approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) and stressed the importance of meaningful public participation.
In April 2021, new controversies arose when a PIL was filed in the Delhi High Court seeking the suspension of construction work due to health and safety concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic’s second wave. The high court allowed construction to continue, considering it a vital national project. The Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal against the high court’s order, highlighting the selective targeting of the Central Vista project by the petitioners.
The Central Vista redevelopment project in India has encountered significant legal challenges and controversies since its inception. While the Supreme Court’s majority verdict upheld the project’s environmental clearance and land use permissions, dissenting voices have raised concerns about procedural aspects and public participation. As the project moves forward, it remains essential to balance development goals with transparent decision-making processes and adherence to heritage conservation guidelines.