The Supreme Court has cleared through a majority judgment the process of building Central Vista, a new Parliament complex for the country. There is without doubt, a need to expand the Parliament complex. The Members of Parliament have often complained about lack of individual spaces for them to meet their constituents. With passing time, there is a need to expand facilities to MPs as also the ministers among others. The political parties which are represented in parliament and recognized either as a party or legislative group too need more facilities. There is a need to integrate the governance with legislature. Thus there was a need to expand the parliamentary infrastructure was beyond doubt.
There is of course an emotional angle to it. The current building has been witness to historical events. It might have been constructed by the British but its association with independent India is more pronounced. From the declaration of independence to the adoption of the new constitution to the meetings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha to historic legislations being passed to the Central Hall being the centre of gossip for parliamentarians to the central hall being venue where political parties could negotiate, the government and the opposition could find a meeting ground all would bring up numerous emotions to parliamentarians, the staff, media persons and others associated with the institution. The fact is Britain continue to use Westminster for centuries and so does the US which uses the Capitol Hill for centuries too adds to notion that the Indian parliament too could do with the existing structure with of course repairs being thrown in. the annexures could be built up to accommodate personal offices for MPs or expansion of office facility for parties represented in parliament. It would be akin to the way the parliamentary library came about. Yet, the government in its wisdom decided to opt for the new parliamentary complex altogether with the existing parliament being converted into a museum for the future generations to learn about Indian parliamentary practices.
Yet aside of the emotions, there have been attacks on the Central Vista project. There are many in the opposition who are attacking on the grounds of extravagance during the times of distress. This is an often repeated formula for criticism in India dating back to 1947. It is time, the India moves into a different league rather than being time warp of India being a country of perennial distress. There is no doubt, an emergency of sorts exists in the health sector given the pandemic clouds hanging around, yet this is no reason to stop or criticize the project. India needs something to demonstrate its symbolism and manifestation of democratic credentials, the Central Vista would serve the purpose best. There are of course environmentalists who find disdain in every activity. These eco-fundamentalists seem to weigh strongly favour of environmental protection. There is no doubt, environmental protection is essential but seeking to block every project on the grounds of alleged environmental damage is a doing a disservice. There is no doubt that there would be some reshaping of the Delhi landscape with the emergence of Central Vista but it has to be viewed in the overall cost benefit analysis. The problem of the environmental fundamentalists is they view everything through a prism of costs rather than a prism of net benefits (benefits-costs). Secondly, to the environmental fundamentalists as also their non-governmental cheerleaders, they while lacking electoral credibility seek to use the judiciary as forum shopping to push their agenda. Therefore it was not exactly a surprise to find these groups marching together in knocking the doors of the Supreme Court.
The question that arises is whether the judiciary should entertain these petitions. The judiciary is no doubt expected to resolve disputes. But should the judiciary, an unelected body whose role is interpretation of law should get involved in being the arbiter of projects both within the capital and without. This is a precedent that is something goes contrary to the functions delineated in the constitutional scheme of things. The executive has certain powers and responsibilities and it is well within its domain to exercise the same. The judiciary can no doubt consider whether the actions are outside the framework of the law but the decision to sit on judgment of the Central Vista project clearly indicated an overreach for the judiciary.
There is an increasing tendency over the last many years for the judiciary to overreach into domains which are earmarked for legislature or executive. The overreach began during the tenure of PV Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister and the Second Judges case in particular. The lack of reaction from the executive seems to have emboldened them. The overreach took a new shape during the UPA-II years wherein the executive complicated abdicated its responsibility. The judicial overreach thus was not without context. Yet having tasted blood, they felt they could be the arbiters of everything they survey. On the other hand, there always existed a coterie that would not get elected but chose to exercise powers on the basis of alleged public support. The groups of environmental fundamentalist NGOs too belong to this category. If they have something anti, they can always choose to participate in elections, get themselves voted to power and do the changes. They cannot use selective forum shopping to further their agenda. While the executive is backed by the legislative majority thus the mandate of the people, the NGOs and their cheerleaders have no such backing. But with period of time, they have cultivated a lobby, undertaken a massive PR exercise and project themselves as custodians of societal welfare. It is this group which uses judiciary. The judiciary too perhaps found in them a way to exercise power beyond their remit and thus a complex of judiciary and legal activists was formed. The litigation that arose in the context of Central Vista was exactly an outcome of the same, something catalysed by emergence of tribunals like National Green Tribunal among others. These tribunals have judicial powers or at least quasi judicial in the worst case act as a law unto themselves seeking to set aside every decision at their whims and fancies on specious grounds. The Supreme Court should never have entertained the petition, instead, the outcome has been a majority judgment which will perhaps fuel more fire. The Central Vista might have been cleared but what is needed is the cleansing of judicial overreach and the activist complex that seeks to exercise power without responsibility.
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 