The Centre’s application seeking environmental clearance for the construction of a new Parliament complex has been deferred by the Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC), and the proposal is likely to be reconsidered after pending court cases related to the project are resolved, according to documents seen by HT and officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

An expert appraisal committee (EAC) on infrastructure under the MoEFCC held a meeting on February 25 to review a proposal by the Union ministry of housing and urban affairs’ construction arm, the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), seeking green clearance for the new Parliament building.12

According to the minutes of the meeting, a copy of which HT has reviewed, EAC noted that the project would provide a “larger Parliament building for the nation for better functioning of the legislature” but also added that CPWD needed to meet a slew of conditions before the proposal can be reconsidered.

EAC sought revised details of the total built-up area proposed or the expansion, scope of renovation of the existing Parliament building, status of court cases, a traffic management plan, point-wise reply to the representations received and updated Master Plan of Delhi showing land-use of “plot no.118”.

....

• 1. EAC, at the February 25 meeting, noted that a large number of representations have been received in the ministry and also by the panel’s chairman/member(s). “The concerns raised in representation(s) are mainly on the following points: The Parliament building is structurally a part of the composite notified heritage precinct, the Central Vista. The application disregards the historical, cultural and social importance of the existing Parliament by treating its expansion and renovation as any other regular construction project,” the panel noted.
• 2. The Supreme Court on Friday transferred all writ petitions filed before the Delhi HC challenging the Central Vista redevelopment project to itself just days after the court allowed DDA to notify the proposed land-use changes. “In our opinion, it is just and proper that writ petition itself is heard by this court instead of examining the grievance about the manner in which the interim directions have been passed and then vacated by the HC. Indeed, this order is not a reflection on the proceedings before the HC, in any manner, but in larger public interest, we deem it appropriate that the entire matter pertaining to challenge pending before the HC is heard and decided by this court expeditiously,” the SC said.