New Delhi: As widely expected, Prime Minister Narendra Modi Sunday inaugurated the Parliament building, a project that bears his stamp on it and will leave his legacy in the country’s seat of power for a long time to come. However, Prime Minister Modi’s big day of inaugurating the new Parliament building was not without legal challenges.
The Central Vista Project and the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya of Uttar Pradesh have been considered two landmark projects of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. However, both faced numerous legal challenges. Unlike the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, Central Vista was not supposed to be dragged into litigation, but no project of public importance in the country sees the light of the day without a legal battle be it metro projects, bullet train, highways and expressways or a new Parliament building.
The idea of constructing a new Parliament building is not a new one. Even during the first tenure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the then Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan had proposed to construct a new Parliament building, but the idea was put on the back burner following resistance from some opposition leaders.
However, in the second term, Prime Minister Narendra Modi revived the idea with a sense of urgency to complete the renovation of the seat of power in New Delhi, which included building several new swanky buildings to house ministries and Central government offices, including the construction of a new and bigger Parliament building. However, in less than a year after assuming the office for the second term in May 2019, Covid-19 global pandemic struck the world and a nationwide lockdown was imposed on the country for three months, which was extended for another three months with some relaxation.
First legal challenge to the Central Vista project
No, later than the project was put in motion, the Central Vista project faced legal hurdles. In December 2019, a public notice was issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), inviting objections to the proposed changes in the master plan. An individual Rajeev Suri filed a petition in Delhi High Court against this and the High Court directed the DDA to inform the court in furtherance of the said public notice.
The petitioner had challenged the grant of environmental clearance, the grant of approval by the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) and the Heritage Conservation Committee, the approval for land use change as per the DDA Act and the selection of a design consultant. However, the Centre filed objections to Rajeev Suri’s petition and a division bench of the Delhi High Court stayed the single bench order.
Aggrieved by the Delhi High Court’s double bench order, the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court. In response to the petition, the Supreme Court transferred the matter in March 2020. “We deem it appropriate that the entire matter about the challenge pending before the High Court is heard and decided by this court. Expeditiously,” the Supreme Court had said then. After the transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court, several other petitions were filed in the top court challenging the construction and renovation of the Central Vista project.