Supreme Court clears Reliance plan for development of open spaces on Mumbai Coastal Road

The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Reliance Industries’ proposed development of public open spaces along Mumbai’s Coastal Road [Jipnesh Narendra Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors]. .A Bench of Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to consider Reliance’s master layout plan in accordance with the Supreme Court’s earlier order after the company sought a clarification over the proposed Mumbai Coastal Road Garden and Promenade project.The Court reiterated that the project must remain consistent with the conditions laid down in its January 12 judgment.“The said area ought to be accessible for general public for its free use except making provision with respect to maintaining the project with high standards and in the best possible manner,” the Court had observed in its earlier order.The Bench also recorded a statement made on behalf of Reliance that not more than 15 per cent of the total area would be used for recreational activities involving ticketed or access-controlled facilities..The case stems from the BMC’s decision, reportedly taken in 2025, to appoint Reliance Industries under its corporate social responsibility initiative to undertake the landscaping and long-term maintenance of the public open spaces proposed along the Mumbai Coastal Road.That decision was challenged before the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation (PIL) which alleged that the project could result in commercialisation of the area and violate assurances governing its use..Rejecting those concerns in January, a Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar held that the apprehensions were unfounded and found no merit in the challenge.The Court observed that strategic development of public parks, gardens, promenades, cycling tracks and other civic amenities along the coastal stretch was necessary for Mumbai’s urban development and ecological enhancement. It also clarified that while limited recreational and visitor-oriented facilities could be introduced in restricted portions of the project, no residential or commercial development for sale or lease would be permitted..It was in the backdrop of those directions that Reliance returned to the Supreme Court seeking a clarification that its revised master layout and concept design complied with the January judgment and could be taken forward.According to the application, Reliance had approached the BMC seeking in-principle approval for the revised layout plan. The proposal was subsequently considered by the civic body’s Landscaping Committee.The Committee reportedly discussed whether certain recreational or ticketed facilities proposed as part of the project would require separate approval from the Supreme Court before the plan could move forward. While the proposal was recommended for in-principle approval, the matter did not proceed further because of concerns that approval from the apex court was necessary..Taking note of the situation, the Supreme Court on June 11 observed that despite the Landscaping Committee’s recommendation that the proposal be placed before higher authorities, the project had remained stalled “in the absence of the so-called approval by the Supreme Court.”The Court, therefore, directed that the master layout plan be considered by the BMC without violating its January 12 order.“Needless to reiterate, that the applicant shall not undertake any such activities which would violate this Court’s order dated 12.01.2026,” the Bench added..At the same time, the Court took on record Reliance’s statement that not more than 15 per cent of the total area would be used for recreational activities involving ticketed or access-controlled facilities.With the June 11 order, the Supreme Court has clarified that the project may proceed subject to compliance with the safeguards laid down in its earlier judgment, while leaving it to the BMC to consider the master layout plan in accordance with law..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Somanatha Padhan.The respondents were represented by Advocates Ashish Batra, Ashish Wad, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Manoj Wad, Swati Arya, Deepanshu Verma and Akash Kakade..[Read Order].Jipnesh Narendra Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.