So far, two petitions have filed before the Delhi High Court against the change in land use of plots within the Central Vista.1 ... Despite these questions being raised before the judiciary, one significant area remains largely unexplored – the redevelopment being at odds with regulations governing heritage conservation as well as the Indian Constitution. As per a 2009 notification issued by the government of Delhi, the Central Vista Precincts are listed as a Grade I heritage precinct and the North and South Block buildings, the National Archives, Parliament House and Campus as Grade I heritage buildings. Grade I heritage consists of buildings and precincts of national or historic importance, embodying excellence in architectural style, design and aesthetics and which are the prime landmarks of the region.

....

As the debate about the plan rages, it is also worth turning to the Constitution of India. Article 51-A sets out the fundamental duties of Indian citizens, and Clause (f) states that it shall be the duty of citizens “to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture”. Though not directly enforceable by Courts, numerous environmental cases have interpreted fundamental duties as casting positive obligations upon the government, extending even to reviewing policy decisions in fit cases.

Even if Article 51-A(f) is deemed to be unenforceable on its own, it can be coupled with the provisions of the Unified Byelaws and other regulations, as well as the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The Supreme Court has recognised that “life” includes one’s culture and heritage, and “protection of that heritage in its full measure” would fall within Article 21. These observations were made in 1988 in a petition alleging mismanagement of a museum trust. Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to intervene based on peculiar facts, such as the petition not being filed in public interest but for settling scores between members of the Jaipur royal family – which consideration can be safely ruled out in the present context.

All these are plausible legal contentions that could hobble the project.

• 1. The first petition was abruptly transferred from the High Court to the Supreme Court in “larger public interest”, without being “a reflection on the proceedings before the High Court, in any manner”, according to the top court. But in its order, the Supreme Court did not stay the project. It merely ordered that any steps taken by the authorities during the petition’s pendency “will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings”.

  The fate of the second petition was even more dismal – it was rejected on April 30 by the Supreme Court with liberty to the petitioner to amend the first petition. In doing so, the Chief Justice of India remarked, “During Covid-19 situation, nobody is going to do anything [on the project] and there is no urgency.”