'Not Irrational, Arbitrary': Jetty Near Gateway Of India Cleared By High Court

In a major boost for Mumbai's coastal infrastructure, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a series of public interest litigations challenging the construction of a passenger jetty and terminal near the iconic Gateway of India.

Affirming its legality and public necessity, the court gave its nod for the ambitious waterfront project, being carried out by the Maharashtra government and Mumbai Maritime Board (MMB), but also issued directives to ensure that public interest and statutory safeguards remain paramount.

The verdict came after months of heated arguments between local residents' associations, environmentalists, and the State. The petitioners, including the Clean Heritage Colaba Residents Association and prominent citizens raised concerns about environmental degradation, flawed site selection, heritage violations, and a lack of public consultation.

Project In Public Interest, Not Arbitrary: Court

Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne held that the project was a considered policy decision made in public interest and fell within the permissible framework of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) 2019 Notification.

"The decision to locate the project near Radio Club, despite historical preference for Ferry Wharf, does not render it irrational or arbitrary," the court observed, adding, "Policy decisions cannot be interfered with unless they are manifestly arbitrary, which is not the case here."

The court also noted that all relevant regulatory approvals, including CRZ clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), heritage no-objection certificate (NOC) from Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC), and permissions from the Archaeological Department and Mumbai Traffic Police had been duly obtained.

Judicial Review Limited In Technical, Policy Matters

Emphasising judicial restraint, the court cited past Supreme Court judgments that said courts must defer to expert bodies on infrastructure and environmental matters unless decisions are mala fide or ultra vires.

The judges rejected the petitioners' argument that the proposed jetty could not be treated as a "standalone" facility. The project includes a 570-metre-long racquet-shaped jetty with 10 boarding platforms, a terminal with a VIP lounge, parking for 150 cars, cafes, a food court, and an amphitheatre. Despite these facilities, the court accepted the state's argument that these were ancillary to a passenger jetty, thus qualifying it for clearance by the state-level MCZMA rather than the central Ministry of Environment.

Concerns Addressed

A central plank of the petitioners' argument was a report submitted in 2000 by consulting engineers recommending Ferry Wharf as the most environmentally and operationally suitable site. However, the court found that the MMB was not bound by the two-decade-old report, especially in light of changing urban dynamics and expert inputs from subsequent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies.

"Even assuming Ferry Wharf was once preferable, the MMB's departure from it is not unjustified," the court ruled. "There is no obligation to follow prior expert recommendations in perpetuity, especially when alternate expert assessments have validated the current site."

Critically Vulnerable Coastal Area?

On the argument that the project falls within a "critically vulnerable coastal area," the bench held that the CRZ 2019 notification and subsequent amendments permitted construction of standalone passenger jetties in such zones, subject to safeguards.

The petitioners' fear that the development would damage heritage views and marine ecology were also dismissed as speculative. The court also noted the extensive mitigation measures and the fact that similar projects in the vicinity had previously received clearances.

Decongestion Benefits

The court took note of the public benefit the project seeks to bring. It would "decongest the traffic and tourism load" at the Gateway of India and modernise the long-standing but outdated jetty infrastructure.

The judgment emphasised that more than 3.5 million passengers currently use the makeshift jetties annually, often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The new terminal aims to provide secure boarding, emergency facilities, accessibility for the disabled, and structured traffic management.

Safeguards

While dismissing the petitions against the Colaba passenger jetty project, the court also issued a series of directions to ensure that the development does not violate environmental or heritage norms and remains within the regulatory framework. The directions are as follows:

Mandatory compliance with approvals: The Mumbai Maritime Board and executing authorities must strictly adhere to all conditions imposed by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority, Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee, the Archaeological Department, and the Mumbai Traffic Police. Any violation will be treated as non-compliance with statutory approvals.

Ancillary facilities to remain secondary: Facilities such as the amphitheatre, food court, cafe, and VIP lounge proposed as part of the terminal are to remain incidental to the jetty's primary purpose as a passenger terminal. They cannot be expanded or operated in a way that changes the nature of the project into a commercial or recreational venture.

Periodic monitoring by MCZMA: The MCZMA is directed to carry out regular monitoring of the project's construction and operational phases to ensure there are no unauthorised modifications or breaches of the Coastal Regulation Zone clearance.

Environmental safeguards for marine health: The disposal of sewage, effluents, and grey/black water from terminal facilities and berthed vessels must be managed through approved systems as per the EIA plan. No untreated discharge will be permitted into the sea.

Preservation of Gateway of India: The court directed that the jetty project must not obstruct the visibility, physical access, or structural integrity of the Gateway of India. The heritage precinct must remain undisturbed in both construction and operational stages.

Construction impact reporting: The project proponents must assess and report the ecological impact of piling and marine construction activities, especially during monsoon and marine breeding seasons. These reports must be submitted to the MCZMA for oversight.

No precedent for other CRZ projects: The court clarified that its approval for this project is case-specific. It cannot be cited as a precedent or justification for similar developments in other ecologically sensitive CRZ-I or CRZ-IV areas without a full and independent regulatory assessment.