In justifying the Central Vista Redevelopment Project, the Government of India has asserted: (1) it enhances India’s democracy, (2) heritage conservation has been incorporated, (3) annual savings in rent of ₹1,000 crore will be realised, (4) the project promotes gainful employment, and (5) all relevant laws have been scrupulously followed. Let’s unpack these claims.

Enhancing democracy: As the spatial epicentre of India’s democracy, the project should embody the highest ideals of democracy and transparency, rather than scraping through by minimum standards. Yet, it is shrouded in secrecy, without public consultation or public disclosure and debate on needs, designs and costs. It appears that enough progress on approvals and construction is being sought in secrecy so that plans, when eventually disclosed, will be a fait accompli.

This project has not been debated in Parliament, and the precedent of parliamentary oversight over such projects goes ignored. Moreover, the land use alterations to the main vista between Vijay Chowk and the India Gate hexagon, which earlier included public institutional space socially and culturally alive at all times, now displaces vibrant public space with a complete encircling of government offices.

Heritage conservation: Redeveloping the Central Vista precinct, officially listed as a Grade-1 heritage space, should follow established best practice of being preceded by a comprehensive heritage audit, documenting tangible and intangible heritage. This has been ignored. No consideration has been given to a legal stipulation that preserving a Grade-1 listed building requires consideration applied to its surroundings, so that its eminence in the urban fabric is undisturbed. Heritage is a matter of public memory that demands public debate, while a veil of secrecy surrounds the project.

Savings in rent: Most governmental facilities in Delhi are owned by the Land and Development Office, where rent is paid by one arm of government to another. What one arm gains, the other arm loses. Annual saving of ₹1,000 crore is a notional saving on paper, and when compared against cost of capital for new construction, will result in a substantive negative balance. 

Moreover, this figure of ₹1,000 crore does not match with a public assertion by the project’s architect that the redevelopment allows 10,000 government servants from 29 ministries, currently working from locations outside Central Vista, to move into the precinct to spatially consolidate all ministries. An annual spend of ₹1,000 crore for 10,000 persons would constitute a rental rate higher than that of New Delhi’s most premium real estate.

Gainful employment: It is not enough to merely state it generates employment. Any large project will do that. It is necessary to demonstrate, when compared to other possible employment generators, that this is the most efficient expenditure for generating per rupee the largest quantum of employment.

Abiding by relevant laws: Once again, a project of this significance must offer a role model for the highest possible ideal, not sink to the lowest common denominator. Sadly, this is not the yardstick the majority judgment of the Supreme Court applied in evaluating this case.

Some key concerns:

• Taking refuge under an old legislation of 1899, Central Public Works Department (CPWD) is acting as both project proponent and local body sanctioning the project, a clear conflict of interest. Two statutory bodies, Delhi Urban Art Commission and Heritage Conservation Committee Delhi, are required by the Acts that constitute them to accept submissions only from three recognised local bodies — CPWD is not in the list. Yet, they have accorded approval to the new Parliament building.
• For environmental approval, to bypass a stringent process that applies to projects above 1,50,000 square metres in-built area, the Parliament building has been submitted as a stand-alone project. Justification given is that it has no functional linkage with other spaces, even though CPWD has admitted elsewhere that Parliament will depend on surrounding areas for car parking.
• In his dissenting Supreme Court judgment, Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that the Notice Inviting Tender from architects calls for ‘a visionary master plan to be drawn up for the entire Central Vista area’, and the consequent changes are significant. In this light, he averred the processes followed for master plan amendment and heritage conservation fall short of the law, specifically with reference to public disclosure, consideration granted to public objections, and prior approvals for heritage conservation.

There is sufficient cause for concern that the Central Vista Redevelopment Project undermines public interest and sets undesirable precedents for the future.