Plea filed in SC against Delhi HC's refusal to halt construction on Central Vista Redevelopment project

The Delhi HC castigated the well-intended public concern of the petitioners as 'motivated', the petition contended

A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court's judgement which refused to halt the Central Vista Redevelopment project during the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic with Rs one lakh cost.

Petitioners Anya Malhotra, a translator, and Sohail Hashmi, a historian and documentary filmmaker, sought stay of the May 31 judgement, which, they claimed, dismissed their plea on the face value without any inquiry.

They maintained that the plea was a purely public health and safety issue during the zenith of Covid’s catastrophic second wave as it ravaged the city of Delhi and exposed its crumbling health infrastructure. But the High Court treated it as an attack on the Central Vista Redevelopment project.

The HC had said the work on the project of national importance has to be completed within time-bound schedule by November, 2021. It also said public is widely interested in the project, which envisaged new triangular Parliament building, with seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs. The ongoing construction has been repeatedly criticised by main Opposition Congress party leaders.

The petition filed by advocate Nitin Saluja said, "The High Court erroneously and without any justification or basis held the petition to be ill-intended, motivated and lacking bonafides. The judgement, apart from misconstruing the bonafide intention of the petitioners, cast them in a negative light without cause and at the cost of their right to reputation."

They also pointed out the High Court concluded that they specifically chose only one project without considering that they had in fact prayed that suo motu cognizance should be taken if other projects violated Covid protocols or Delhi Disaster Management Authority orders.

Further, "the order gauges the public importance of the project without there being any averment by the Centre and others, except that the project needs to comply with a contractual deadline," their plea contended.

It also claimed the High Court's order considered the importance and significance of conducting "sovereign functions of Parliament" but ignored the sovereign duty of the State to protect the health and lives of its citizens which is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court not only failed to exercise its extraordinary Constitutional powers under Article 226 to address the urgency and gravity of the imminent health concerns but castigated the well-intended public concern of the petitioners as "motivated" without any basis or justification, it maintained.

Check out DH latest videos: