The controversies surrounding the Central Vista project are not showing any sign of ending, as the Supreme Court on its own took up the issue of relocation of the 135-year-old Central Secretariat Library (CSL) which has more than 8.5 lakh books. Following media reports that adequate space was not allocated for the library in the new Central Vista plan, an apex court bench sought the detailed plan and the actual layout of the proposed building. Besides media reports, the issue was also flagged by a retired judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The problem could have been averted had the government held wider consultations given the complexity and the historical significance of the project. Ironically, it was the Supreme Court that greenlit the controversial Central Vista Redevelopment Project in a 2:1 majority verdict, on the grounds that it could only exercise very limited scrutiny in matters of executive policy. The dissenting judge had held that the project suffered from irregularities and insufficient public consultation.

Thus, most of the controversies are due to the unseemly hurry in conceiving, planning, and executing the Central Vista project. It was widely believed at that time that BJP had the 2024 general elections in mind, as the high profile inauguration, which happened in phases in the run up to the elections, was accompanied by publicity blitzkrieg. The Central Vista is expected to complete only in 2028.

The Central Vista Project, in a sense, was an embodiment of BJP’s ideological beliefs, cultural peeves, and election-oriented realpolitik – and also a certain disdain for history and intellect. The project had undertones of civilizational symbolism as against British Imperial architecture of Lutyens' Delhi. The diverse architectural heritage was replaced by its own distinct political aesthetic. It was also due to its penchant for monumentalism involving gigantic structures that could project its supreme political power.

Not only buildings of the British era, the Central Vista envisaged demolition and redevelopment of a cluster of Central Secretariat buildings of the Congress era. Among them is Shastri Bhavan, which houses the library in question. The issue of severe space crunch faced by CSL dates back to the UPA government itself, which dealt with it in an ad hoc manner and before it could come up with a holistic solution, it lost power at the Centre.

The justification proffered by the NDA government was the need for more office space to accommodate the expanding functions of various ministries. Indeed, there is some merit in its argument that an integrated complex that accommodates all the 51 ministries in 10 buildings will enable efficient and coordinated administration.

The Central Vista project, however, falls short in planning with foresight when it comes to iconic institutions such as the library and museum. The biggest challenge will be the moving of thousands of rare documents from CSL without any damage and loss. The inept track record of the bureaucracy does not inspire much confidence especially when it relates to rare, irreplaceable archives. The court’s timely intervention should help not only in its smooth and safe transition but also in its long-term preservation, cataloguing, and digitisation. Because the library, after all, is not just a brick and mortar building but an invaluable repository of shared collective and institutional memory, historical heritage, and intellectual legacy.