Judiciary steps back: Bombay HC greenlights gateway jetty despite environmental concerns

By Gajanan Khergamker* 

In an era marked by growing friction between environmental preservation and urban development, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. delivered in 2025, stands as a watershed moment. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne, upheld the construction of the ₹229 crore Passenger Jetty and Terminal Facilities Project abutting Mumbai’s iconic Gateway of India, striking a delicate balance between constitutional principles, environmental governance, and urban policy.

This verdict is not merely a victory for infrastructure but a reaffirmation of a foundational tenet of constitutional law: the doctrine of separation of powers, which restrains judicial activism in domains best governed by executive discretion.

The petitioners — an array of residents’ associations, activists, and environmentalists — sought judicial intervention to halt the project on grounds ranging from violation of environmental norms, threat to heritage zones, to alleged absence of sustainable planning. Their primary contention revolved around the non-consideration of an earlier expert report by Howe India Pvt Ltd., which, back in 2000, had recommended Ferry Wharf over the Radio Club site for a Passenger Water Terminal (PWT). The Court, however, declined to supplant executive wisdom with its own, holding that project location, feasibility, and planning fall squarely within the domain of policy-making.

In doing so, the Bench reiterated the principle enunciated in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000), where the Apex Court observed that “once the considerations are weighed and a conscious policy decision is taken by the Government, courts should normally not interfere.”

One of the more nuanced aspects of this judgement lies in its validation of the executive’s rationale despite an apparent deviation from earlier expert opinion. The Bench examined the evolution of the project — including multiple Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports, revised designs, permissions from agencies including the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC), and the Mumbai Traffic Police — and held the decision to proceed with the project at the Radio Club site as neither “arbitrary” nor “irrational.”

In invoking Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016), the Court fortified its position that judicial review of policy decisions is permissible only if the decision is “patently arbitrary, discriminatory or violative of any constitutional or legal provision.” The Court thus drew a line between “difference in opinion” and “unconstitutionality,” concluding that mere preference for an alternate location did not justify judicial negation of a democratically-evolved executive decision.

The Petitioners attempted to anchor their case within the environmental law jurisprudence developed through landmark rulings like T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2022) and Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2019). However, the Court astutely distinguished the factual matrix and refused to mechanistically apply these precedents.

Importantly, the Court underscored that environmental clearances were granted after due consideration by statutory authorities such as the MCZMA and SEIAA, and not merely as an act of bureaucratic indulgence. The inclusion of facilities like an amphitheatre and a café — claimed to be beyond the scope of a “standalone jetty” — did not, in the Court’s view, alter the essential character of the project. Referring to Essar Oil Ltd. v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004) and Citizen for Green Doon v. Union of India (2023), the Court held that judicial scrutiny of environmental clearances must be confined to questions of jurisdictional error, mala fides, or manifest illegality — none of which were proved by the petitioners.

The ruling carves out an important space for expert bodies and administrative regulators. Citing Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2016) and Delhi International Airport Ltd. v. AERA (2024), the judgment emphasised that the role of courts is not to don the robes of engineers or planners but to ensure that such decisions are not tainted by caprice or mala fides.

By according deference to the opinions of the MHCC, MCZMA, and even the Navy, the Court reinstated trust in statutory frameworks. It dismissed the argument that the CRZ clearance was ultra vires merely because earlier the same project had required Central clearance. The dynamic evolution of environmental law, the Court observed, permitted decentralisation and did not tie present authorities to older procedural interpretations.

In a critical procedural assertion, the Court castigated the delay in approaching the bench. The project had been in public discourse since 2012, with tender invitations in 2024, and groundbreaking in March 2025. The petitions, however, were filed only in April and May 2025. Relying on Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Co. (1999), the Court held that judicial intervention must not act as a handbrake on development, particularly when projects have proceeded to advanced stages and involved public exchequer and logistics.

What makes this judgment seminal is its reiteration of judicial restraint — a virtue often neglected in the age of Public Interest Litigations that blur the line between activism and overreach. The verdict reflects a conscious departure from the trend of preemptive injunctions based on speculative harm. It echoes the jurisprudence in Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India (1996), where policy decisions made after due consultation and approvals were held to be outside the purview of judicial review unless palpably perverse.

This decision is poised to have cascading implications for similar infrastructural ventures across India. It sends a strong message to policymakers, developers, and civil society that while environmental integrity remains sacrosanct, the judiciary will not serve as a reflexive blockade to executive resolve — especially when accompanied by statutory due process and technical validation.

Furthermore, the ruling solidifies the concept that public interest must not be conflated with individual preference, and that institutional processes must not be stymied by subjective apprehensions.

In upholding the Radio Club Jetty project, the Bombay High Court has done more than permit a maritime facility — it has reaffirmed the sanctity of constitutional boundaries. It has reinforced the idea that the judiciary’s role is supervisory, not substitutive, and that the path of national progress — lined with policy, infrastructure, and execution — must not be burdened by needless judicial interference cloaked in the garb of public interest.

The verdict serves as a robust affirmation of the doctrine of separation of powers, a precedent against unwarranted judicial activism, and a touchstone for jurisprudential balance between development and ecology.

---

*Editor | Solicitor | Documentary Filmmaker. Web: www.gajanankhergamker.com. A version of this article was first published in The Draft