[Central Vista] A hands-off approach by court is not permissible in this case: Shyam Divan tells Supreme Court - LIVE UPDATES

A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar is hearing the challenge made to Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new Parliament building in Delhi. .Live updates from the hearing today feature on this page. .Senior Advocate Shyam Divan: Governments will come and go and conformity with democratic norms is needed especially if you are heading a parliamentary heritage work. Heightened judicial scrutiny is called for in this case..Divan: A case of this type demands a higher level of judicial scrutiny. Central Vista project should be subjected to higher degree of judicial review as Parliament building is a symbol of Indian democracy. Rights and privileges of the general public are at stake..Divan: No empirical study has been to show the huge cost that is being incurred to the exchequer.. the authorities have acted arbitrarily and thus constitutional checks and balances will have to be used here..Divan: No expert determination has been invoked here. No expert study has been conducted to show the present Parliament building is no longer usable. For a society that leans on the past which is evident on Constitution, then, for this reason, expertise is needed.Divan: A hands-off approach by the court is not permissible in this case. Centuries of history cannot be undone at the will of the government. Authority has to show that decision is based upon relevant consideration and documents..Divan cites the doctrine of limited-government principle. .Divan: Even in executive realm somethings cannot be done as it is against a law. When you deal with Parliament, there needs to be checks and balances. How can it be left to CPWD who no one knows?.Divan reads Justice J Chelameshwar's opinion in the KS Puttuswamy case. "Constitution cannot be seen as an ink which can be erased from one regime to another.".Divan: CJI Bobde had defined privacy as a travelling right. This has a resonance in this case..Divan: If you want to supplant the parliamentary building, you need a statute. Parliament needs to be involved in this. There needs to be highest degree of transparency in this process..Divan: Initially I took two to three weeks to draft a plaint on the original side and (to) send a solicitor. But here the architects will finish the blueprint of the project in 2 to 3 weeks. But competence varies across professions.Divan refers to a catena of judgments to prove how public participation is important in administrative affairs. .Now refers to the Doctors for Life judgment.Divan: For an administrative action, the right of participation through transparent access to information is very important..Justice Khanwilkar: Even if we accept the submission of public participation in the stage of planning or initiation, then will it be in every case or only in this case where Parliament building is concerned?.Divan: It's not my case at all that all grade 1 building need public participation. But this is different.Court: The South African court judgment that you cited (Doctors for Life case) is based on a constitutional provision that they have where public participation is needed. But we don't have such a provision. So you need to tell us where is that in our Constitution which asks for public participation.Arguments to continue tomorrow. Bench rises

[Central Vista] A hands-off approach by court is not permissible in this case: Shyam Divan tells Supreme Court - LIVE UPDATES

Related Stories