On Monday (November 22), the Supreme Court of India rejected a petition that sought to challenge the change in land use on a plot in the Central Vista area.
The petitioner named Rajeev Suri had alleged that the said plot of land was a recreational area, which is to be used for constructing the new residences of the Prime Minister and Vice-President as part of the Central Vista Project. He claimed that the change in land use, as directed by the Union of India, violated Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty). Suri added that the notification denied recreational opportunities to children and Delhi residents to access green and open spaces in the Central Vista area.
“Respondent No. 1 (Union of India) malafidely issued Notification S.O. 3848 (E) dated 28.10.2020 notifying the change in land use, which will deprive residents of Delhi and citizens of India a vast chunk of highly treasured open and green space in the Central Vista area available for social and recreational activity, stands against Article 21, Right to Life the right to enjoyment of a wholesome life,” the petition read.
#SupremeCourt to hear a petition challenging the change in the land use of a plot where the new official residences of the vice president and the Prime Minister are stipulated as part of the ambitious Centra Vista project in Delhi #CentralVista pic.twitter.com/j4BYU5hlwP
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) November 23, 2021
Rajeev Suri also claimed, “The Central Vista is the most cherished open space in New Delhi and perhaps India, a symbol of their nationhood, and the publicness of this cherished open spaces land is being compromised which is a great betrayal of the Public Trust Doctrine.” He had originally filed the petition, seeking quashing of notification allowing change in land use, in March last year. It was rejected by the court on August 28, 2020.
Supreme Court rejects plea with 2:1 majority vote
However, the apex Court had asked the petitioner to approach it when a final decision on the matter would be taken. The fresh petition was heard by a 3-Judge Bench, comprising of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar. The Court stated, “Petitioner has not argued that change in land use is in a malafide manner. It is the argument of the petitioner that since in the past it was a recreational area it should have been retained like that. This cannot be the scope of judicial review. It is for the authority concerned and is a matter of public policy.”
