# RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 15 S.C.R. 283
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-01-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 12 Of 2021
- **Bench:** A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, Sanjiv Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajeev-suri-v-delhi-development-authority-ors-35377
- **Pages:** 432

## Headnote

Judicial Review - Scope and amplitude of - Central Vista
Project of the Government of India - Judicial scrutiny regarding
its' permissibility - Government's duty to consult - Scope and ambit
of the citizen's right to participate in quasi legislative exercise -
Issues concerning decisions taken by the statutory Authorities
including regarding the change in land use, grant of statutory and
other permissions, environmental as well as heritage clearances
etc. - Challenge to change in land use of six plots in the Central
Vista under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the permissions
/approvals granted by the Central Vista Committee, the Delhi Urban
Arts Commission under the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act, 1973
and clearance/no-objection for construction of a new Parliament
House under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Failure to
take prior permission/approval of the Heritage Conservation
Committee as per Annexure II of the Unified Building Bye-Laws,
alleged - Plea of absence of sufficient public participation in the
entire process - Held (per majority) (per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. [for
himself and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.]): There is no infirmity in the
grant of "No Objection" by the Central Vista Committee (CVC);
"Approval" by the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) as per the
DUAC Act, 1973; and "Prior approval" by the Heritage
Conservation Committee (HCC) under clause 1.12 of the Building
Byelaws for Delhi, 2016 - Further, exercise of power by the Central
Government u/s.11A(2) of the DDA Act, 1957 is just and proper
and thus modifications regarding change in land use of plot Nos. 2
to 8 in the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021/Zonal Development Plan for
Zone-D and Zone-C vide impugned notification dated 20.3.2020,
confirmed - Recommendation of Environmental Clearance (EC) by
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and grant thereof by Ministry
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
of Environment and Forest (MoEF) is just, proper and in accordance
with law including the 2006 Notification - Project proponent may
set up smog tower(s) of adequate capacity, as being integral part
of the new Parliament building project; and additionally, use smog
guns at the construction site throughout the construction phase is
in progress on the site - The stage of prior permission under clause
1.3 of the Building Bye Laws of the Heritage Conservation Committee
(HCC), is the stage of actual development/ redevelopment etc. work
is to commence and not the incipient stage of planning and
formalisation of the Project - Accordingly, respondents to obtain
prior permission of the designated Authority before actually starting
any development /redevelopment work on the stated plots/structures/
precincts governed by the heritage laws including on plot No. 118,
if already not obtained - Held (per Sanjiv Khanna, J.) (partly
dissenting) (Minority judgment): The dissent is only on aspects of
public participation on interpretation of the statutory provisions,
failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation
Committee (HCC) and order passed by the Expert Appraisal
Committee (EAC) - However on aspects of Notice inviting Bid, award
of consultancy and the order of the Urban Arts Commission, as a
standalone and independent order, there is no disagreement - Final
notification of modification /change of the land use dated 28th March
2020 in respect of the 6 plots in the Central Vista quashed and set
aside, with directions - Order of EAC dated 22nd April, 2020 and
environment clearance by Ministry of Environment and Forest dated
17th June, 2020 set aside, and an order of remit to the EAC passed
with a request that they may decide the question on environment
clearance, without awaiting the decision on the question of change/
modification of land use - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - s.11A(2)
- Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act, 1973 - Environment Protection
Act, 1986 - Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016 - Master Plan of
Delhi, 2021.
Doctrines / Principles - Pri

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 935,579. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
 [2021] 15 S.C.R. 283
283
RAJEEV SURI
V.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS
(Transferred Case (Civil) No. 229 of 2020)
JANUARY 05, 2021
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Judicial Review - Scope and amplitude of - Central Vista
Project of the Government of India - Judicial scrutiny regarding
its' permissibility - Government's duty to consult - Scope and ambit
of the citizen's right to participate in quasi legislative exercise -
Issues concerning decisions taken by the statutory Authorities
including regarding the change in land use, grant of statutory and
other permissions, environmental as well as heritage clearances
etc. - Challenge to change in land use of six plots in the Central
Vista under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the permissions
/approvals granted by the Central Vista Committee, the Delhi Urban
Arts Commission under the Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act, 1973
and clearance/no-objection for construction of a new Parliament
House under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 - Failure to
take prior permission/approval of the Heritage Conservation
Committee as per Annexure II of the Unified Building Bye-Laws,
alleged - Plea of absence of sufficient public participation in the
entire process - Held (per majority) (per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. [for
himself and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.]): There is no infirmity in the
grant of "No Objection" by the Central Vista Committee (CVC);
"Approval" by the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) as per the
DUAC Act, 1973; and "Prior approval" by the Heritage
Conservation Committee (HCC) under clause 1.12 of the Building
Byelaws for Delhi, 2016 - Further, exercise of power by the Central
Government u/s.11A(2) of the DDA Act, 1957 is just and proper
and thus modifications regarding change in land use of plot Nos. 2
to 8 in the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021/Zonal Development Plan for
Zone-D and Zone-C vide impugned notification dated 20.3.2020,
confirmed - Recommendation of Environmental Clearance (EC) by
Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and grant thereof by Ministry
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
of Environment and Forest (MoEF) is just, proper and in accordance
with law including the 2006 Notification - Project proponent may
set up smog tower(s) of adequate capacity, as being integral part
of the new Parliament building project; and additionally, use smog
guns at the construction site throughout the construction phase is
in progress on the site - The stage of prior permission under clause
1.3 of the Building Bye Laws of the Heritage Conservation Committee
(HCC), is the stage of actual development/ redevelopment etc. work
is to commence and not the incipient stage of planning and
formalisation of the Project - Accordingly, respondents to obtain
prior permission of the designated Authority before actually starting
any development /redevelopment work on the stated plots/structures/
precincts governed by the heritage laws including on plot No. 118,
if already not obtained - Held (per Sanjiv Khanna, J.) (partly
dissenting) (Minority judgment): The dissent is only on aspects of
public participation on interpretation of the statutory provisions,
failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation
Committee (HCC) and order passed by the Expert Appraisal
Committee (EAC) - However on aspects of Notice inviting Bid, award
of consultancy and the order of the Urban Arts Commission, as a
standalone and independent order, there is no disagreement - Final
notification of modification /change of the land use dated 28th March
2020 in respect of the 6 plots in the Central Vista quashed and set
aside, with directions - Order of EAC dated 22nd April, 2020 and
environment clearance by Ministry of Environment and Forest dated
17th June, 2020 set aside, and an order of remit to the EAC passed
with a request that they may decide the question on environment
clearance, without awaiting the decision on the question of change/
modification of land use - Delhi Development Act, 1957 - s.11A(2)
- Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act, 1973 - Environment Protection
Act, 1986 - Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016 - Master Plan of
Delhi, 2021.
Doctrines / Principles - Principle of Rule of Law - Held: The
principle of Rule of Law runs as a common thread through the
substantive as well as procedural laws - A democratic polity requires
all organs of the state to attach equal importance to substance of
law as well as to the procedure delineated to perform such
substantive functions - That must be the constant endeavour to touch
both ends as well as means.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
Judiciary and Rule of Law - The duty enjoined upon the
judiciary is to ensure checks and balances; and to place itself
between the Government and citizens when they come face to face
in a Court of law - The judicial organ is not meant to impose the
citizens' or even its own version of good governance upon the
Government in the name of Rule of Law in exercise of its power of
judicial review.
Government Policy - Interference with - Judicial Review -
Scope - Held: The Courts do not sit in appeal over the decisions of
the Government to do merit review of the subjective decision as
such - The Government may examine advantages or disadvantages
of a policy at its own end, it may or may not achieve the desired
objective - The Government is entitled to commit errors or achieve
successes in policy matters as long as constitutional principles are
not violated in the process - It is not the Court's concern to enquire
into the priorities of an elected Government - Judicial review is
never meant to venture into the mind of the Government and thereby
examine validity of a decision.
Judicial Review - Principled judicial review - "Constitutional
due process" - Held: In a principled judicial review a "check" is
maintainable without tilting the "balance" - An elected Government
is the repository of public faith in matters of development -
Dispensation of judicial review cannot be resorted to by the
aggrieved /dissenting section for vindication of their point of view
until and unless it is demonstrated that the proposed action is in
breach of procedure established by law or in a given case, colourable
exercise of powers of the Government - Therefore, it is important
for the Courts to remain alive to all the attending circumstances
and not interfere merely because another option as in the perception
of the aggrieved/dissenting section of public would have been a
better option.
Doctrines / Principles - Constitutionalism - Held:
Constitutionalism is a relative concept which envisages a
constitutional order wherein powers and limits on the exercise of
those powers are duly acknowledged - It is a tool which is used to
reach upto the ultimate goal of constitutionalization of governance
but it cannot be deployed to present an alternative model of
governance - Principle of constitutionalism is a work in progress
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
which is meant to infuse life and blood into an existing scheme
which has stood the test of constitutional validity and not to nudge
with the scheme itself - It may only be deployed to evolve minimum
standards of procedures prescribed by law - It is not to undermine
or supplant the elaborate statutory regulatory schemes.
Constitution of India - Role of - Held: Constitution in our
system plays twin role - First, Constitution as the guardian of
fundamental rights and second, Constitution as the structure of
governance.
Democracy - Principle of participatory democracy - Elements
- Scope of public involvement in Government processes - Held:
The principle of participatory democracy has two integral elements
- first, public participation in decision making and second, placing
information regarding Government actions in public domain - The
scope of public involvement in Government processes is however a
matter dependent on legal framework of a country and the Court
should be loath to venture into that area in the guise of eminence of
the project under consideration - In a democratic setup where the
citizen has entrusted abundant governance to the Government, it is
bounden obligation of the Government to keep the citizens well
informed about its actions, as a prudent trustee would.
Policy and Development - Role of the Courts - Held: Courts
operate within the boundaries defined by the Constitution, and
cannot be called upon to govern, for, they have no wherewithal or
prowess and expertise in that regard - The political issues including
regarding development policies of the Government of the day must
be debated in the Parliament, to which it is accountable - The role
of Court is limited to examining the constitutionality including
legality of the policy and Government actions - The right to
development is a basic human right and no organ of the State is
expected to become an impediment in the process of development
as long as the government proceeds in accordance with law -
Judiciary.
In the instant matters, this Court was called upon by the
petitioners to undertake a comprehensive and heightened judicial
scrutiny regarding the permissibility of the Central Vista Project
of the Government of India. As per the policy documents, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
287
need for the development of the Central Vista Project is rooted
in the creation of a larger working space for efficient functioning
of the highest legislative wing of the country and for integrated
administrative block for Ministries/ Departments presently spread
out at different locations including on rental basis. The Central
Vista lies in the heart of the national capital, and within the
"Lutyens' Bungalow Zone" (LBZ), and is described by the Indian
National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) as the
"ensemble with main axis Rajpath...the Rashtrapati Bhawan at
Raisina Hills, flanked by the Secretariat (North and South
Blocks)...the Parliament House...the hexagonal round-about that
has the India Gate and the Canopy..."
Diverse issues concerning the decisions taken by the
statutory Authorities including regarding the change in land use,
grant of statutory and other permissions, environmental as well
as heritage clearances etc., were raised in the proceedings. The
challenge was premised on high principles of democratic values
as applicable in India and not limited to mere infringement of
statutory provisions of the governing enactments. That is on
account of the nature of project - being of high political significance
and eminence for our democratic republic; and for upholding the
"Rule of Law", which is on a higher pedestal than the governance
by "Rule by Law". An argument was also advanced as regards
the absence of sufficient public participation in the entire process.
Advancing the argument regarding direct public consultation, the
petitioners stated that the concept of participatory democracy
demands that a project of this nature must involve the common
public as they are the real stakeholders of national heritage and
must be consulted at every stage of the project including prior to
drawing outline of the project, releasing consultancy tender,
modifying the Master Plan and finalisation of the design and
making changes therein.
The dispute relating to the modification and redevelopment
of the Central Vista has different facets. First, is the legal
challenge to change in the land use of six plots in the Central
Vista under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the
permissions/approvals granted by the Central Vista Committee,
the Delhi Urban Arts Commission under the Delhi Urban Arts
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
Commission Act, 1973 and the clearance/no-objection for
construction of a new Parliament House under the Environment
Protection Act, 1986. Failure to take prior permission/approval
of the Heritage Conservation Committee as per Annexure II of
the Unified Building Bye-Laws is alleged. In Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 853/2020, the Notice inviting Bid and award of consultancy
to the ninth respondent therein has been challenged. At a deeper
and conceptual level the question relates to the government's
duty to consult and the scope and ambit of the citizen's right to
participate in the quasi legislative exercise. Connected with the
two issues is the third question of scope and amplitude of the
power of judicial review.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
Per A.M. Khanwilkar, J. [for himself and for Dinesh
Maheshwari, J.] (Majority judgment)
HELD:1.1. The Rule of Law requires law in existence; such
law must qualify as law within the meaning of the Constitution
and must satisfy the standards laid therein and legally applicable
meaning of Rule of Law in India can be best understood as a
democratic rule within the four corners of the Constitution, as
originally envisaged and as is interpreted from time to time. The
existence of democracy per se does not guarantee adherence to
Rule of Law, but abidance of Rule of Law by one and all is the
hallmark of a real thriving democracy. [Para 133][386-B-D]
1.2. The fact that all power flows from law and must be
exercised in accordance with such law is easy to be theorized in
a constitutional discourse, but difficult to be sustained in the
aftermath of ever-expanding potpourri of the law itself. It is for
this very reason the statement - 'Rule of Law' must encompass
a dynamic concept albeit rooted in four corners of the
Constitution. It provides a constant trigger to any state-citizen
intercourse and calls upon this Court to strike a just balance
between two entities, both equally bound by the same principle
of superiority of law. A just and time-tested methodology to strike
this balance lies in the end product of furthering the avowed goal
of a democracy premised upon Rule of Law and not dragging it
backwards. [Para 134][386-D-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
1.3. The principle of Rule of Law runs as a common thread
through the substantive as well as procedural laws. A democratic
polity requires all organs of the state to attach equal importance
to substance of law as well as to the procedure delineated to
perform such substantive functions. That must be the constant
endeavour to touch both ends as well as means. [Para 135][386F-G]
2.1. The trajectory of our jurisprudence in review of matters
involving personal liberties has been one of strict approaches. It
is, however, a misnomer to propagate that we have gradually
transformed from chosen "procedure established by law" into
once consciously rejected "due process of law". The petitioners,
despite their best of efforts, have not been able to demonstrate a
case of deprivation of life or personal liberty of any individual on
account of any of the impugned executive action. Whereas, it is
essential for the petitioners to demonstrate a real and direct
impact or restriction on their core fundamental rights due to the
impugned executive action to invoke the due process argument.
A cause-effect relationship is essential. Only then the burden
would shift on the State to either show the absence of restrictions
or justification of restrictions within the permissible exceptions
of Part-III. [Para 144][394-E-G]
2.2. A judicial review is an exercise in reference to some
existing rights and the reliefs and remedies prayed for. The Rule
of Law, as accepted and settled in India, with regard to judicial
interference in administrative and executive or policy matters is
no more res integra. The duty enjoined upon the judiciary is to
ensure checks and balances; and to place itself between the
Government and citizens when they come face to face in a Court
of law. It is meant to act as an equaliser and ensure that the flow
of decisions from executive to citizens is overseen through the
prism of well-established principles, as and when called upon to
do so. The judicial organ is not meant to impose the citizens' or
even its own version of good governance upon the Government
in the name of Rule of Law in exercise of its power of judicial
review. [Para 145][394-H; 395-A-C]
2.3. In India, what prevails is the "constitutional due
process" i.e., the process which is due under the constitutional
scheme. And what is due, is a principled judicial review wherein
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
a "check" is maintainable without tilting the "balance". For, all
organs of the state are constitutionally committed to and beholden
by the common goal of giving effect to processes and procedure
established by law, ideals, expectations, rights and duties due
under the Constitution and no deviation can be permitted
therefrom. [Para 158][405-A-C]
3. In a democracy, the electors repose their faith in the
elected Government which is accountable to the legislature and
expect it to adopt the best possible course of action in public
interest. Thus, an elected Government is the repository of public
faith in matters of development. Some section of the public/
citizens may have another view point if not complete disagreement
with the course of action perceived by the elected Government,
but then, the dispensation of judicial review cannot be resorted
to by the aggrieved/dissenting section for vindication of their point
of view until and unless it is demonstrated that the proposed
action is in breach of procedure established by law or in a given
case, colourable exercise of powers of the Government.
Therefore, it is important for the Courts to remain alive to all the
attending circumstances and not interfere merely because another
option as in the perception of the aggrieved/dissenting section
of public would have been a better option. [Para 163][406-H; 407A-C]
4.1. The Courts do not sit in appeal over the decisions of
the Government to do merit review of the subjective decision as
such. The Government may examine advantages or disadvantages
of a policy at its own end, it may or may not achieve the desired
objective. The Government is entitled to commit errors or
achieve successes in policy matters as long as constitutional
principles are not violated in the process. It is not the Court's
concern to enquire into the priorities of an elected Government.
Judicial review is never meant to venture into the mind of the
Government and thereby examine validity of a decision. [Paras
164 and 165][407-C; 408-B-C]
4.2. Judicial review primarily involves a review of State
action - legislative, executive, administrative and policy. The
primary examination in a review of a legislative action is the
existence of power with the legislature to legislate on a particular
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
subject matter. For this purpose, doctrines of pith and substance,
harmonious construction, territorial nexus etc. are often resorted
to. Once the existence of power is not in dispute, it is essentially
an enquiry under Article 13 of the Constitution which enjoins the
State to not violate any of the provisions of Part-III in a lawmaking
function. The review of executive action would depend upon the
precise nature of the action. For, the domain of executive is wide
and is generally understood to take within its sweep all residuary
functions of the State. Thus, the precise scope of review would
depend on the decision and the subject matter. For instance, an
action taken under a statute must be in accordance with the statute
and would be checked on the anvil of ultra vires the statutory or
constitutional parameters. The enquiry must also ensure that the
executive action is within the scope of executive powers
earmarked for State Governments and Union Government
respectively in the constitutional scheme. The scope of review
of a pure administrative action is well settled. Since generally
individuals are directly involved in such action, the Court concerns
itself with the sacred principles of natural justice - audi altrem
partem, speaking orders, absence of bias etc. The enquiry is also
informed by the Wednesbury principles of unreasonableness. The
review of a policy decision entails a limited enquiry. Second
guessing by the Court or substitution of judicial opinion on what
would constitute a better policy is strictly excluded from the
purview of this enquiry. Under the constitutional scheme, the
government/executive is vested with the resources to undertake
necessary research, studies, dialogue and expert consultation
and accordingly, a pure policy decision is not interfered with in
an ordinary manner. The burden is heavy to demonstrate a
manifest illegality or arbitrariness or procedural lapses in the
culmination of the policy decision. However, the underlying feature
of protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
must inform all enquiries of State action by the constitutional Court.
[Para 167][410-D-H; 411-A-B]
5.1. Constitutionalism is a relative concept which envisages
a constitutional order wherein powers and limits on the exercise
of those powers are duly acknowledged. It is a tool which is used
to reach upto the ultimate goal of constitutionalization of
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
governance and it cannot be deployed to present an alternative
model of governance. It would not only be absurd but also fraught
with dangers of overreach and ambiguity if subjective principles
of interpretation are applied by detaching them from the textual
scheme of the Constitution, particularly when the textual scheme
lays down an elaborate structure of administration. For, to do so
would be to drag a duly elected Government on the edges as it
would be under a constant fear of being adjudged wrong on the
basis of undefined principles which appeal to "three gentlemen
or five gentlemen sitting as a Court". And what will suffer is public
interest in the form of public exchequer including sovereignty of
the nation. [Para 170][412-C-F]
5.2. The principle of constitutionalism is a work in progress
which is meant to infuse life and blood into an existing scheme
which has stood the test of constitutional validity and not to nudge
with the scheme itself. It may only be deployed to evolve minimum
standards of procedures prescribed by law. It is not to undermine
or supplant the elaborate statutory regulatory schemes. [Para
172][413-A-B]
6.1. A holistic understanding of the dispensation envisaged
under our Constitution would reveal that we are a representative
democracy with strong elements of participatory democracy
embedded in it. The element of participation, however, is
regulated not only by statutes but also by the Constitution. The
Constitution, if it would have envisaged every important decision
to be flowing from the public in the manner proposed by the
petitioners, would have clearly provided for that dispensation. It
has not. Understood thus, the Constitution in our system plays
twin role - first, Constitution as the guardian of fundamental rights
and second, Constitution as the structure of governance. [Para
183][421-C-D]
6.2. The principle of participatory democracy has two
integral elements - first, public participation in decision making
and second, placing information regarding Government actions
in public domain. The first element, no matter how desirable, is
carefully circumscribed by the state of Rule of Law or procedure
established by law, as present, and a fine balance has been struck
between need for public participation and effective functioning of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
293
administration. The legislature has expressly provided for such
public participation and the extent thereof in the governing
enactments.[Para 184][421-E-F]
6.3. The participation itself involves three features - the
stage, the extent and the nature of participation. The extent and
quality of permissible participation is dependent upon a multitude
of factors including, but not limited to, the stage of procedure,
nature of subject matter, number of affected persons, local
conditions, geography, strategic importance of project, budgetary
allocations for the project etc. The subject matter of a
development project having no direct bearing on lives and
livelihoods cannot be equated with a project which has a direct
impact upon their lives and livelihoods. [Para 185][421-F-G]
6.4. Pertinently, this exercise cannot be undertaken in
abstractness merely because participation is one of the facets of
a democratic structure. Rather, it involves delicate analysis of a
complex web of factors. Whether in a given case personal oral
hearing is to be provisioned for or mere representations be
invited or public discussion is called for, is a matter for the
legislature to make a law in that regard. [Para 186][422-B]
6.5. One may very well have our own notion of participation
and it could be radically different from the prescribed one. It may
be possible that some people feel unheard in a direct manner,
however, a democracy, in an ultimate analysis, is about prevalence
of collective wisdom of citizens, which may or may not commend
to individual wisdom of few. The citizens are completely free to
advocate any notion along the Government policy or the manner
of making it in their free exercise of right to speech and
expression, but enforcement of such notion cannot be fructified
by resorting to judicial review. The idea of public involvement in
administrative matters is based upon the stage and extent of
representation prescribed by the legislature. No country with a
sizeable population like ours can give a promise of direct
participation to every individual in the decision-making process
(of the Government) in administrative matters unless the law so
prescribes. [Paras 187 and 188][422-C-F]
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
6.6. However, it must be borne in mind that such public
participation is not to supplant the discretion of the Government
or to retard the development work. It is only for inviting
constructive suggestions/objections from all stakeholders for
effective implementation of the policy of the Government, to
subserve public interest. [Para 189][422-F-G]
6.7. The prosaic, bland, inapplicable metaphysical principles
of constitutional theory, imported from foreign jurisdictions,
cannot create an extra-constitutional standard of judicial review
or to extend involvement of public at every level of governance
absent any statutory regime in that regard. Thus, the scope of
public involvement in Government processes is a matter
dependent on legal framework of a country and the Court should
be loath to venture into that area in the guise of eminence of the
project under consideration. [Para 191][426-A-B]
6.8. The other facet of participatory democracy is disclosure
of information in public domain about the actions of Government.
The petitioners' argument is that for effective participation, the
citizens must know what they are participating in and why. This
merits consideration. For, unless complete and relevant
information about Government decision is placed in public
domain, the public would be ill-equipped to engage with the
Government in a meaningful manner. In a democracy, disclosure
of full information is empowerment and acts as an enabler for
meaningful participation. Granting open access to information also
secures the goal of transparency to which all public institutions
are wedded. It is right to say that the Right to Information Act,
2005 has empowered the citizen to obtain information from the
Government but it would be absolutely untenable to say that there
is no duty on the Government to be open. In a democratic setup
where the citizen has entrusted abundant governance to the
Government, it is bounden obligation of the Government to keep
the citizens well informed about its actions, as a prudent trustee
would. [Paras 193 and 194][428-C-D; 431-C]
6.9. The idea of political justice is not constrained to an
orthodox understanding of a democratic form of Government.
We are in an information age and political justice would be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
incomplete without informational justice which essentially
requires the decision makers to consider the subjects of their
decisions as rightful recipients of all information that may have
an impact on their lives. Furthermore, open availability of
information would also advance the objective of education and
empowerment. Article 51(h) provides for the fundamental duty
"to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of
inquiry and reform". The furtherance of spirit of inquiry and
reform is largely dependent on the availability of information. It
is nothing but a duty which enjoins the citizens to participate in
good governance. Notably, the respondents in the present case
have recognised the importance of openness and have placed
elaborate data to demonstrate how all steps of the project including
all permissions, orders, invitations, approvals etc. were made
available for direct public access online from time to time at the
earliest available opportunity. [Paras 196 and 197][431-H; 432A-D]
7. In the present case, the petitioners enthusiastically called
upon this Court to venture into territories that are way beyond
the contemplated powers of a constitutional court. No doubt, the
Courts are repositories of immense public trust and the fact that
some public interest actions have generated commendable results
is noteworthy, but it is equally important to realise that Courts
operate within the boundaries defined by the Constitution. The
Court cannot be called upon to govern. For, the court has no
wherewithal or prowess and expertise in that regard. [Para
420][595-E; 595-G-H; 596-A]
8. The constitutionally envisaged system of "checks and
balances" has been completely misconstrued and misapplied in
this case. The principle of "checks and balances" posits two
concepts - "check" and "balance". Whereas the former finds a
manifestation in the concept of judicial review, the latter is derived
from the well enshrined principle of separation of powers. The
political issues including regarding development policies of the
Government of the day must be debated in the Parliament, to
which it is accountable. The role of Court is limited to examining
the constitutionality including legality of the policy and
Government actions. The right to development is a basic human
right and no organ of the State is expected to become an
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
impediment in the process of development as long as the
government proceeds in accordance with law. [Para 421][596-BD]
9. In conclusion, it is declared and directed as follows:
(i) There is no infirmity in the grant of: (a) "No Objection"
by the Central Vista Committee (CVC); (b) "Approval" by the
Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) as per the DUAC Act, 1973;
and (c) "Prior approval" by the Heritage Conservation Committee
(HCC) under clause 1.12 of the Building Byelaws for Delhi, 2016.
(ii) Further, the exercise of power by the Central
Government under Section 11A(2) of the DDA Act, 1957 is just
and proper and thus the modifications regarding change in land
use of plot Nos. 2 to 8 in the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021/Zonal
Development Plan for Zone-D and Zone-C vide impugned
notification dated 20.3.2020 stands confirmed.
(iii) The recommendation of Environmental Clearance (EC)
by Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and grant thereof by MoEF
is just, proper and in accordance with law including the 2006
Notification. The same along with appropriate directions therein
are upheld to ensure that the highlighted mitigating measures
are followed by the project proponent in their letter and spirit.
(iv) The project proponent may set up smog tower(s) of
adequate capacity, as being integral part of the new Parliament
building project; and additionally, use smog guns at the
construction site throughout the construction phase is in progress
on the site.
(v) The respondent MoEF to consider issuing similar
general directions regarding installation of adequate capacity of
smog tower(s) as integral part in all future major development
projects whilst granting development permissions, particularly
in cities with bad track record of air quality - be it relating to
Government buildings, townships or other private projects of
similar scale and magnitude, including to use smog guns during
the construction activity of the Project is in progress.
(vi) The stage of prior permission under clause 1.3 of the
Building Bye Laws of the Heritage Conservation Committee
(HCC), is the stage of actual development/redevelopment etc.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
work is to commence and not the incipient stage of planning and
formalisation of the Project.
Accordingly, the respondents shall obtain aforementioned
prior permission of the designated Authority before actually
starting any development/redevelopment work on the stated
plots/structures/precincts governed by the heritage laws including
on plot No. 118, if already not obtained.
(vii) The selection/appointment of Consultant, in light of
the limited examination warranted in this case, is held to be just
and proper. [Para 423][596-F-H; 597-A-H; 598-A]
Lal Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018)
15 SCC 407; Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.
Muddappa & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 54 : [1991] 3 SCR
102 ; R.K. Mittal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 232 : [2011] 15 SCR 877; Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Hiraman
Sitaram Deorukhar & Ors. (2019) 14 SCC 411; Goel
Ganga Developers India Private Limited v. Union of
India Through Secretary, Ministry of Environment and
Forests & Ors. (2018) 18 SCC 257; Union of India &
Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 720;
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & Anr. v. Union
of India & Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 223 : [1990] 1 SCR 909;
State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 7:
[2002] 1 SCR 27; Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
v. Promoters and Builders Association & Anr. (2004)
10 SCC 796 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 207; Transmission
Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited & Anr. v. Sai
Renewable Power Private Limited & Ors. (2011) 11 SCC
34 : [2010] 8 SCR 636; Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. the
Notified Area Committee, Tulsipur (1980) 2 SCC 295 :
[1980] 2 SCR 1111; Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija & Ors.
v. Collector, Thane, Maharahstra & Ors. (1989) 3 SCC
396 : [1989] 3 SCR 405 ; Bangalore Development
Authority v. Aircraft Employees' Cooperative Society
Limited & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 442 : [2012] 4 SCR 881;
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial
Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 705 :
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
[2007] 6 SCR 799; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India &
Ors.
(2019) 12 SCC 720;
Automotive Tyre
Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority &
Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 258 : [2011] 1 SCR 198; State of
U.P. & Ors. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh &
Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 505 : [1989] 1 SCR 176; Aruna
Roy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC
368: [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 266; Travancore Rayon Ltd.
v. Union of India (1969) 3 SCC 868 : [1970] 3 SCR 40;
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019) 15
SCC 401 : [2019] 5 SCR 916; Rajendra Shankar
Shukla & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2015)
10 SCC 400 : [2015] 11 SCR 723; S.N. Chandrashekar
& Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 208
: [2006] 1 SCR 1039; Virender Gaur & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 577 : [1994] 6 Suppl.
 SCR 78; Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 356: [2006] 1 Suppl.
SCR 772;
Bahadursinh
Lakhubhai
Gohil
v.
Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 65 :
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1023; National Buildings
Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan & Ors.
(1998) 7 SCC 66: [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 156; R.S. Garg
v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 430 : [2006] 4
Suppl. SCR 120; Council of Architecture v. Mukesh
Goyal & Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 329; Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education v. K.S. Gandhi & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716 :
[1991] 1 SCR 772 ; Alaknanda Hydropower Company
Limited v. Anuj Joshi & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 769 : [2013]
11 SCR 784; Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union
of India & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 647: [1996] 5 Suppl.
SCR 241; A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V.
Nayudu (Retd.) & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 62 : [2000] 5
Suppl. SCR 249 ; Lafarge Umiam Mining Private
Limited v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC
338: [2011] 7 SCR 954; Keystone Realtors Private
Limited v. Anil V. Tharthare & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 66 :
[2019] 17 SCR 539; Bengaluru Development Authority
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
v. Sudhakar Hegde & Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 328;
Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors.
(2006) 3 SCC 549 : [2006] 2 SCR 419; Common Cause
v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 499 : [2017] 13
SCR 361; State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Thakur
Bharat Singh AIR 1967 SC 1170 : [1967] 2 SCR 454;
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) & Anr. (II) v. Union of India
& Anr. (2019) 1 SCC 1 : [2018] 8 SCR 1; Internet and
Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India
(2020) 10 SCC 274 : [2020] 2 SCR 297; Cellular
Operators Association of India & Ors. v. Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India & Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
703 : [2016] 9 SCR 1; K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. (I) v.
Union of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1 : [2017] 10
SCR 569; State of U.P. v. Raj Narain & Ors. (1975) 4
SCC 428: [1975] 3 SCR 333; Reliance Petrochemicals
Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers,
Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 592 : [1988]
3 Suppl. SCR 212; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.
(1997) 1 SCC 388 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 12; I.R.
Coelho (Dead) by LRs v. State of T.N. (2007) 2 SCC 1
: [2007] 1 SCR 706 ; Government (NCT of Delhi) v.
Union of India & Anr. (2018) 8 SCC 501 : [2018] 7
SCR 1; Lok Prahari Through its General Secretary v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 1 : [2018]
6 SCR 1076 ; Rajeev Mankotia v. Secretary to the
President of India & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 441 : [1997]
3 SCR 421; Sushanta Tagore & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors. (2005) 3 SCC 16 : [2005] 2 SCR 502; K.
Guruprasad Rao v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2013)
8 SCC 418 : [2013] 11 SCR 581; Manohar Joshi v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 619; Public
Interest Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
(2019) 3 SCC 224; Brajendra Singh Yambem v. Union
of India & Anr. (2016) 9 SCC 20 : [2016] 6 SCR 333;
Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors. 2019 SCC Online SC 1520;
State of Punjab & Anr. v. Khan Chand (1974) 1 SCC
549 : [1974] 2 SCR 768; Shayara Bano v. Union of
RAJEEV SURI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 15 S.C.R.
India & Ors. (2017) 9 SCC 1: [2017] 9 SCR 797;
Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference
No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1 : [2012] 9 SCR 311;
Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 :
[2014] 9 SCR 965; Global Energy Limited & Anr. v.
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2009) 15
SCC 570: [2009] 9 SCR 22; Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. &
Ors. v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305 : [1962] 3
SCR 842; Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. (1972) 2 SCC 788 : [1973] 2 SCR 757;
Union of India & Ors. v. Motion Picture Association &
Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 150: [1999] 3 SCR 875; Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai D.
Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637 : [1992] 3 SCR 595; Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India
& Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors. (1995)
2 SCC 161: [1995] 1 SCR 1036 ; Chandramouleshwar
Prasad v. Patna High Court & Ors. (1969) 3 SCC 56 :
[1970] 2 SCR 666; Orissa Mining Corporation Limited
v.