New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling that allowed construction work at the Central Vista Redevelopment Project during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and endorsed a ₹1 lakh penalty imposed by the high court on the petitioners.
“If Covid-19 was of concern, how would one project alone be the concern of the petitioners,” a three-judge bench of the top court headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar said.
The top court echoed the high court’s 31 May order that described the petition by Anya Malhotra, a translator, and Sohail Hashmi, a historian and documentary filmmaker as “motivated” since the plea did not raise objections about construction at other sites.
“The impression before the high court is fortified before us that as a PIL (public interest litigation) petitioner, did you conduct your research about other similar construction projects in the city? You were selective about this one project only. The high court says it is a motivated petition as you have insisted upon the closure of one public project and not any other.”
The bench said the view taken by the Delhi High Court “is a possible view” and that the “challenge” was “untenable as the petitioners have not pointed out as public-spirited persons, whether the petitioner made any enquiries about other public projects in the city.”
The Central Vista Avenue Redevelopment project is part of the larger Central Vista project, which includes construction of a new Parliament building, Central government offices, including a common Central Secretariat, a new residence for the Prime Minister and the Vice President, and central conference facilities.
On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted that the petition did not seek a complete stoppage of work. Luthra said their only aim was to highlight a public health and safety issue as on May 3, when the petition was filed before the high court, the positivity rate in Delhi was 29.74% and the average number of daily deaths was around 353 a day.
“Since it (construction work) had the potential of being a super spreader activity, on account of the to and fro movement of the workers from the site to their accommodation at Sarai Kale Khan, Karol Bagh, Kalkaji, Nizamuddin etc., it was posing a grave risk to the health and safety of the workers and the residents of Delhi,” the petition said.
Luthra stated that according to Delhi Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) guidelines that came into effect from April 19, only those construction activities were permitted that provided on-site accommodation for workers. This was lacking in the case of the Central Vista project, Luthra pointed out, stressing that the same was arranged subsequently.
“When the petition was filed, the project was non-compliant with DDMA regulations,” the senior lawyer said.
The bench, also comprising justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, asked Luthra if he should have proceeded once the project managers complied with the guidelines. “If you are a public-oriented person, once there is a compliance report, should you pursue the petition so vigorously. Once it comes on record that the project is compliant, you must end there.”
Luthra submitted that the high court was free to give a finding on merits, but the scathing observations affected the reputation of petitioners and the cost imposed had a chilling effect on citizens’ right to question the actions of the government. The bench observed, “Genuine PILs have done wonders but questionable PILs have caused problems to our (judicial) system. PIL has its own sanctity.”
Leave a Comment