Central Vista: SC defines limits to its function in a case it took over

CLEARING the trail for the central authorities’s Central Vista redevelopment plan, the Supreme Court on Tuesday additionally underlined the contours of judicial intervention and limitations of the court docket to evaluation sure authorities motion.
“Before we part, we feel constrained to note that in the present case, the petitioners enthusiastically called upon us to venture into territories that are way beyond the contemplated powers of a constitutional court,” stated the bulk opinion.
In a separate part titled “Postlude”, the bulk verdict mentioned the function of a constitutional court docket and “wondered” concerning the circumstances during which a court docket “not only surpasses the boundaries reserved for its oversight in the Constitution but also provides it an express recognition by acknowledging a heightened review”.
“We are equally compelled to wonder if we can jump to put a full stop on execution of policy matters in the first instance without a demonstration of irreparable loss or urgent necessity, or if we can guide the government on moral or ethical matters without any legal basis. In light of the settled law, we should be loath to venture into these areas,” the ruling stated.
The court docket stated that it wanted to state this as a result of “in recent past, the route of public/social interest litigation is being increasingly invoked to call upon the Court to examine pure concerns of policy and sorts of generalised grievances against the system”.
This undertone of judicial introspection was additionally evident within the dissent notice penned by Justice Sanjiv Khanna whilst he disagreed with the bulk view on the substantial questions within the case.
“We have referred to the contentions of the petitioners and respondents in some detail but would not comment on merits. These are complex and esoteric issues which have to be at first stage considered and decided by the specialised authorities,” Justice Khanna wrote in his opinion.
Despite its apparent reluctance to look into sure facets of the Central Vista challenge, nevertheless, it was the Supreme Court itself that had transferred the case to itself and determined to bar another court docket from listening to pleas related with the challenge.
In December 2019, after the Delhi Development Authority held public hearings to herald modifications to land use within the Master Plan, a batch of petitions had been filed difficult the transfer within the Delhi High Court. On February 2, 2020, a single decide of the High Court directed the Centre to tell the court docket earlier than taking any step on issuing a public discover.The Centre challenged this order earlier than a division bench and was granted an ex-parte keep in opposition to the order of the only decide. Subsequently, the petitioners moved the Supreme Court on the restricted facet of the grant of an ex-parte keep when the case was already pending.

“In our opinion, it is just and proper that writ petition itself is heard by this Court instead of examining the grievance about the manner in which the interim directions have been passed and then vacated by the High Court. Indeed, this order is not a reflection on the proceedings before the High Court, in any manner, but in larger public interest, we deem it appropriate that the entire matter pertaining to challenge pending before the High Court is heard and decided by this court expeditiously,” the Supreme Court stated in its March 6 order.
Incidentally, neither the federal government nor the petitioners had moved an utility looking for a switch of the instances to the Supreme Court.