Seven reasons why Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented from the majority opinion and struck down the Central Vista redevelopment.

[T]he judgment by three-judge Bench of the top court was not unanimous with Justice Sanjiv Khanna penning a dissenting judgment disagreeing with the other two judges on the Bench.

The third paragraph in Justice Khanna’s dissenting opinion gave a broad picture of why and on what aspects he disagreed with the majority.

“Since I have reservations with the opinion expressed by my esteemed brother A.M. Khanwilkar, J. on the aspects of public participation on interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee, I have penned down a separate dissenting judgment,” it said.

However, he went on to add that “on the aspects of Notice inviting Bid, award of consultancy and the order of the Urban Arts Commission, as a standalone and independent order, I respectfully agree with the final conclusions in the judgment authored by respected brother Justice AM Khanwilkar.”

Below are the seven grounds on which Justice Khanna dissented from the majority judgment

  1. No adequate notice of development plan: Justice Khanna ruled that the Delhi Development Act (Act) and Delhi Development (Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan) Rules, 1959 prescribe an elaborate procedure for preparation and modifications to be made to Master Plan and Zonal development plans in Delhi.
  2. Proposal is not “minor” but a complete redevelopment of Central Vista: Another aspect noted by Justice Khanna was that the project involved a complete redevelopment of the Central Vista area and the impact of the changes envisaged would not be “minor”.
  3. Central government did not apply mind to suggestions/ objections from public: Once it is established that there are important alterations/changes to the Master Plan, then it is the Central government which is the competent authority to make such alterations as per sub-section (2) of Section 11A of the Act. If the modifications are minor, then it is the DDA that is the competent authority as per sub-section 1 of Section 11A.
  4. Reasonable time not given to public to respond: Justice Khanna also adverted to Section 45 of the Act which mandates that where any notice, order or document issued or made under the Act or any rule, regulation made thereunder requires anything to be done for which no time is fixed under the Act, the notice, order or document shall specify a reasonable time for doing so.
  5. Permission granted by Central Vista Committee pre-meditated: The dissenting judgment also ruled that Central Vista Committee did not apply its mind to the proposal and its decision of March 9, 2020, to accord permission to the proposal was pre-meditated.
  6. No approval from Heritage Conservation Committee: The Unified Building Bye-laws of Delhi, 2016, issued by the Authority under Section 57 of the Development Act, vide paragraph 2.3.3 refers to need for prior approval/no objections from external agencies including Heritage Conservation Committee when it comes to heritage sites or buildings.
  7. Environmental Clearance invalid: Another important ground on which Justice Khanna’s dissenting judgment was based was the invalidity of the order passed by Expert Appraisal Committee recommending Environmental Clearance for the project