New Delhi: Justifying the need for a new Parliament building as part of the Central Vista Project, the CPWD has informed the Supreme Court that the existing building is “old and poor on energy efficiency and fails to meet contemporary fire safety norms”.
The CPWD counter-affidavit filed in the apex court has also pointed out that the building is almost 100-year-old Heritage Grade-I one, pointing out that the building also does not satisfy the upgraded earthquake Zone IV provisions regarding safety of structures.
“Over the years, parliamentary activities and a number of people working therein and visitors have increased manifold. Therefore, it is showing signs of distress due to overutilisation and is not able to meet the current requirement in terms of space, amenities and technology.”
The CPWD said that after a detailed survey and assessment of the present facilities, it was decided to build the new Parliament building on Plot number 118 adjoining the existing Parliament building.
“The new Parliament building is being designed with better facilities, space and state-of-the-art technology, which will meet the current and future needs,” said the affidavit.
“Moreover, the new Parliament building along with the existing one will be a part of the Parliament complex, and the Lok Sabha chamber will be almost 3 times the size of the present one.
“The Rajya Sabha chamber will be more than 4 times the existing one with state-of-the-art technology,” the affidavit further pointed out.
The CPWD contended that construction of the new Parliament building was a necessity as accommodating more members in the existing building was not feasible.
The counter-affidavit was filed in response to a petition that challenged the project on the ground that there is allegedly an “illegal change in land use”.
The petitioner has also raised the issues of environmental clearance to the project, as well as sought court directions to stay the Rs 20,000-crore Central Vista Project.
The apex court has, so far, declined to stay the project.
The Centre denied the petitioner’s contention about the investment of Rs 20,000 crore, saying that the
