It’s illegal, your lordships

The Chief Justice of India and 12 other Supreme Court judges have sought permission from the urban development ministry through the registrar-general to make alterations to their pristine, colonial bungalows, a part of the ‘heritage site’ that comprises Lutyen's Delhi.

By Manisha

In clear contravention of the existing law, the Chief Justice of India and 12 other Supreme Court judges have asked the urban development ministry to permit them to make alterations to their bungalows, which fall within the ‘heritage site’—Lutyen's Delhi. The Chief Justice wants his allotted bungalow to have a porch—so what if it is in Lutyen's Zone.

This construction of porches—or anything else— is in clear disregard of the architectural protection afforded to Delhi's Lutyen's Bungalow Zone (LBZ). And is porches all that they desire or might the reconstruction be rather more extensive and enduring? If permission were to be granted, the honourable justices are likely be in the right; but they would certainly be on the wrong side of the law that seeks to protect the 'heritage status' of LBZ houses. Surprisingly, however, the ministry of finance (department of expenditure) has already given approval to the plaint of the judges.

Under the law, however, no tampering is allowed in the basic structure of LBZ houses. The 1988 guidelines to preserve the LBZ prohibit any changes to the zone without the prime minister's express consent. Furthermore, only two years ago, the World Monuments Fund in New York had named the LBZ as one of the world's 100 most important endangered architectural sites. The Delhi High Court also recently observed that the government should not allow changes and unauthorised constructions in LBZ houses.

The guidelines clearly state that the front setback of the houses should be maintained as per the existing building line and no additional structures allowed. Taking cognisance of the high-profile nature of the occupants of LBZ houses, it also concedes that, for reasons of security, sentry post/guard rooms/frisking sheds, etc, may be provided near the entry point, but that all these structures must be of temporary or portable in nature.

The occupants, are, however, clearly not satisfied with this important concession, notwithstanding the fact that the recent demolitions in Delhi helped extend the public glare to illegal construction in the well-heeled, architecturally-colonial LBZ, which also houses the country's political leaders, apart from judges and senior army personnel. Many Members of Parliament and ministers have made major alterations to their LBZ houses, 'modernising' the bright whitewashed facades and capacious interiors.

Furthermore, in the past 50 years, about 20 bungalows have been ‘erased’ from the original plan and replaced by concrete multistoryed buildings of The State Trading Corporation, Hotel Le Meridian and Hotel Kanishka—and more recently the Indira Gandhi National Centre Of Arts (IGNCA), whcih rubbled six of these old bungalows. Beautiful monuments like the Jantar Mantar are overshadowed by the cluster of tall and unsightly office complexes that have enveloped it.
The proposal seeking the relaxation of the LBZ guidelines for the construction of porches is, in fact, pending before the Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC). The DUAC was set up to advise the Central government in the matter of preserving, developing and maintaining the aesthetic quality of urban and environment design within Delhi, and to provide advice and guidance to any local body in this respect.

According to Jasbir Sahani, one of the panel members of the DUAC, the commission cannot allow the modification/ alteration in the Lutyens Zone. "The DUAC is not the main authority to decide. It is the work of government and NDMC to plan." But another panel member says otherwise.
"Yes, the DUAC can allow modification/alteration in the Lutyens Zone. There has been some subtraction and addition in the past also," says Prof Mohammad Shaheer.

But what about constructions that are 'authorised'? These clearly defeat the very purpose of the law: Who exactly is authorising these changes in violation of the law? The justices' request, made through the registrar general of the Supreme Court and addressed to the secretary (urban development) is in the nature of a whinge that while the bungalows allotted to the Chief Justice and the 12 said Supreme Court judges do not have porches, the other Supreme Court judges have bungalows with those formal protrusions.

The absence of porches, the complaint states, has been causing “considerable inconvenience to the honourable judges, their family members and visitors”, and “consequent embarrassment to their Lordships” (a term for the judiciary, incidentally, prohibited from usage by the Constitution).

The complaint goes on to say that problems arising from the lack of porches become “more acute in the summer and rain due to sudden exposure to the heat and getting drenched in the rainwater while entering or alighting the car (sic)”. The letter also states that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, during a visit to his bungalow at 5, Krishna Menon Marg, has said that the case of the LBZ clearance be processed expeditiously and that his porch be built on a priority basis, preferably before he occupies the bungalow.

As of now, the DUAC is waiting for the opinion of the Central Public Work Department (CPWD) in this regard. The question arises: Why is the DUAC waiting for the CPWD's opinion when the DUAC itself is the final authority? The DUAC remains tightlipped.