A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna, who on November 5 had reserved his verdict on the project, took notice of reports that construction will begin after Prime Minister Narendra Modi lays the foundation stone. for the new Parliament building in December. 10. But Attorney General Tushar Mehta assured that no construction work would begin until the court resolves the matter.
“This matter was included suo motu in light of certain developments. After interacting with the attorney general and when the court’s concern was raised, following instructions, the attorney general stated that there will be no construction activity of any nature at the site in issue The demolition of any structure will not be carried out, including the new translocation of the trees will be kept on hold until a judgment is rendered in all these cases. We take note of this statement. In view of the above, we clarify that the authorities they would be free to proceed with the procedural processes without altering the status of the site (s) in question in any way, including continuing with the scheduled foundation stone-laying program for December 10, “the court said. .
The apex court its verdict has already been reserved on a number of petitions challenging the Center’s decision to build a new Parliament building, central secretariat as well as office premises for ministries under the Central Vista Plan.
The Central Vista redevelopment plan involves the demolition of around 10 buildings, including Shastri Bhavan, Udyog Bhavan, Krishi Bhavan, Vigyan bhavan, House of the Vice President and Lok Nayak Bhavan. It is planned that a common central secretariat complex and a new Parliament building will be built. A new triangular Parliament building, with a capacity of between 900 and 1,200 deputies, is planned and is expected to be built in August 2022, when the country will celebrate 75 years of independence. The common central secretariat building is likely to be ready by 2024.
The sanction of the Vista Central plan has been contested for a number of reasons, including that the environmental impact assessment was not performed and that it was hastily approved without seeking input from the general public and obtaining approval from the heritage committee. The petitioners also challenged the notification of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for land use changes for redevelopment plan.
.
