Overview
- A Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu pressed the Union Territory on how it can proceed when the master plan is "screaming no flyover."
- Amicus curiae Tanu Bedi opposed the Dakshin Marg project, saying no new traffic study was conducted and citing 2015 data showing a lower load ratio on that road than on other corridors.
- Bedi told the court the master plan was notified in 2015 and has never been amended, arguing any departure requires a formal process.
- UT standing counsel Amit Jhanji maintained the plan is recommendatory rather than a prohibition and said heritage aspects require examination, with the administration asserting the site lies outside the core heritage zone.
- The High Court cautioned against irreversible harm to the city’s heritage character and scheduled further hearing later this week.