Retired bureaucrats have written an open letter to the Prime Minister to convey their dismay at the executive highhandedness, including complete disregard for the rule of law and the environment, in decision-making on the Central Vista Redevelopment Project.

They have flagged the brazen impropriety in going ahead with the construction of the Parliament building when the matter was sub judice.

“While the matter is in the courts and further construction activities are suspended, we urge the government to seize this as an opportunity to review the project in its entirety. We strongly believe that the project should not be implemented, particularly at this time,” the letter said.

The letter added: “However, even if the government decides to go ahead in principle, the project must be subjected to critical scrutiny by citizens and independent experts, plans must be redrawn to make them compatible with environmental and heritage conservation standards and the due processes of law relating to such projects must be followed. The essence of a democratic ethos is to listen to the voices of citizens and engage in dialogue with them.”

In the open letter, the collective of retired bureaucrats — which goes by the name Constitutional Conduct — urged the Prime Minister to put the project on hold, considering the economic crisis facing the country and the need to prioritise health in the face of the pandemic.

“This project, from its very inception, has been marked by a degree of executive highhandedness rarely witnessed before. Whether it was in inviting design options, selecting consultants, holding fair and transparent stakeholder consultations, obtaining approvals of the institutions and authorities dealing with urban design, planning and environmental clearances — everything was done to ensure that rules and procedures were given short shrift, due processes treated with contempt and a predetermined plan of action bulldozed through.”

On the court case, the 69 signatories to the letter — who have retired from some of the senior-most positions in government — have asked if the construction of the new Parliament building was undertaken when the matter was in court to “present a fait accompli that would be difficult to reverse”.

Expressing regret over the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the foundation stone-laying ceremony, they said: “While the case was sub judice, it was incumbent upon the government to await its outcome.”

The retired bureaucrats have also questioned why it was the Prime Minister and not the President who laid the foundation stone.

“We wonder what locus standi the Prime Minister has to lay the foundation stone of the Parliament building. The Prime Minister is the head of the executive, not of the legislature. For a building that will accommodate the two Houses of Parliament, the appropriate protocol would have been for the President of India to lay the foundation stone. This was a clear instance of breach of constitutional propriety.”

Article 79 of the Constitution states that “there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and two Houses”.

Referring to the frequent changes in the terms of reference submitted for environmental clearances, the signatories to the letter said this demonstrated the haste with which the massive project was being undertaken, “without adequate internal consultations or application of mind”.

Billing the entire approach as cavalier, Constitutional Conduct further expressed great dismay that “at a time when we are faced with an economy in perilous decline and a pandemic which has brought untold misery to millions, the government has chosen to invest vast sums on a project which represents nothing but the pursuit of pomp and grandeur”.