Rs. 1 lakh costs has "chilling effect": Appeal filed in Supreme Court against Delhi High Court judgment allowing Central Vista construction

An appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court against the May 31 judgment of the Delhi High Court refusing to halt the Central Vista redevelopment project. .The appeal filed by petitioners Anya Malhotra and Sohail Hashmi, took objection to the imposition of costs of Rs. 1 lakh by the High Court on the ground that the petition was motivated and lacked bona fides. Such imposition of costs, the petitioners contended, would have a chilling effect on public spirited individuals raising genuine issues of public health and other issues concerning citizens, the petitioners submitted. "The impugned judgment, especially the imposition of exorbitant costs, has a chilling effect on public spirited individuals raising genuine issues of public health and on the right of citizens to question the actions of the government and to hold it to account, which it is submitted is the bedrock of democracy," the plea said..The petitioners had sought a stay on the construction of Central Vista due to the COVID-19 situation in the national capital and the threat posed by the construction work as a potential super spreader..The Delhi High Court in addition to dismissing the plea, had also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioners. .A Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh had ruled that the work currently ongoing is part and parcel of project and of vital importance and can't be seen in isolation."The whole Central Vista Project is an essential project of National importance, where the sovereign functions of Parliament are also to be conducted. Public is vitally interested in this project," the High Court had said.The High Court had further stated that once the workers were staying at the site and all facilities had been provided and the Covid-19 protocols were being adhered to, there was no reason for it to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stop the project..The appeal before the Supreme Court stated that the petitioners are not only aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, but also by the "unsubstantiated findings and adverse observations, in particular the observation that the petition was motivated, ill-intended and/or lacked bonafides.".It was further contended that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution was duty bound to ensure that the State placed on record, all facts and documents relevant for the adjudication of the case before passing any order. .The appellants through advocate Nitin Saluja also contended that the judgment of the High court implicitly conceded that during the curfew period, the respondents ferried construction workers in violation of lockdown directions. The judgment said that “there is no further movement of workers from Sarai Kale Khan or any other place to the Project site”, yet passed no order to hold the concerned authorities liable for flouting DDMA orders under Section 22 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the plea said. .[BREAKING] "Central Vista essential project of national importance:" Delhi High Court dismisses plea to halt construction with Rs. 1 lakh costs.Earlier, one Pradeep Kumar Yadav had also challenged the May 31 verdict of the High Court which had ruled that Central Vista Project is an essential project of national importance and public is vitally interested in the project.Interestingly, Yadav was not a party to the proceedings before the Delhi High Court..The redevelopment project in the Central Vista area of Lutyens Delhi envisages a new Parliament House, a new residential complex that will house the Prime Minister and the Vice-President, as well as several new office buildings and a Central Secretariat to accommodate Ministry offices..[Central Vista] "Matter of serious public health concern:" Appeal in Supreme Court against Delhi High Court judgment allowing construction.A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had, on January 5, given its green signal to the project, rejecting a batch of petitions challenging the scheme for alleged violation of land use and environmental norms.