Colaba Jetty Verdict Is A Testament To Judicial Restraint
By Gajanan Khergamker
In a landmark decision pronounced on 15 July 2025, the Bombay High Court — through Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne — sided with pragmatism and upheld the tenets of limited judicial intervention in executive policy decisions by permitting the controversial Passenger Jetty and Terminal Facilities Project at Radio Club, abutting the historic Gateway of India.
The writ petitions filed by residents and associations - ostensibly under the garb of heritage, congestion, and environmental concerns - stood dismissed with the Court refusing to interfere in what it saw as a legally sound and policy-driven infrastructure undertaking.
 |
| Image for representational purpose only |
At the heart of the High Court’s decision lies a compelling invocation of the principle that the judiciary must refrain from substituting its views for those of expert regulatory bodies and democratically-elected decision-makers unless a decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or without jurisdiction.
The Division Bench asserted:
“The decision to undertake the project is a policy decision in larger public interest, which has been taken after due care and deliberations... the scope of interference with such policy decision by this Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review, is extremely limited.”
This categorical observation becomes the ratio decidendi of the ruling—the foundational legal principle justifying the Court’s unwillingness to derail a project sanctioned by multiple statutory authorities, merely because it evoked selective public ire.
Three writ petitions had challenged the legality and location of the jetty project, citing potential harm to the environment, heritage structures, traffic congestion, and procedural impropriety. Petitioners placed heavy reliance on a decades-old feasibility report that had recommended an alternate site—Ferry Wharf—for a passenger water terminal.
However, the Court dissected this argument with surgical precision. It noted that the said recommendation was “made under entirely different circumstances more than two decades ago” and that substantial changes had occurred since, necessitating reconsideration. The Court stressed that:
“Feasibility reports of the early 2000s cannot override the collective assessment of statutory and technical bodies in 2025, who have independently cleared the project through requisite NOCs and CRZ clearances.”
Further, it acknowledged the public purpose behind the project—to decongest traffic, modernise water transport infrastructure, and ease passenger load on the existing dilapidated jetties serving nearly 30 to 35 lakh passengers annually.
While the petitioners invoked the precautionary principle and the doctrine of sustainable development, the Court found no material to show that the project violated either. Rather, the Bench observed:
“The project has been assessed by multiple regulatory authorities who have independently evaluated the project and accorded permissions in accordance with statutory mandate… No case is made out of the decision being arbitrary, mala fide, or without jurisdiction.”
On the applicability of the CRZ and EIA Notifications, the Court held that the project, being a “standalone passenger jetty”, did not require full environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment under Entry 7(e) of the EIA Notification, 2006. Instead, the MCZMA’s jurisdiction was valid, and its decision was neither without authority nor perverse.
Perhaps the most significant takeaway is the High Court’s reluctance to entertain what it termed "perception-driven objections" in matters that fall squarely within the executive’s planning domain. The Bench remarked:
“Judicial review does not permit re-evaluation of expert technical findings... mere perception or disagreement with a policy decision is not ground for constitutional intervention.”
In doing so, the Court signalled a clear departure from activism fuelled by local populism and affirmed its trust in administrative competence and statutory compliance. The use of expert bodies such as the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC), MCZMA, and the Mumbai Maritime Board (MMB) was not merely procedural—it was conclusive for the Court in affirming due diligence.
This judgment is as much a triumph of judicial restraint as it is a validation of rational governance. By asserting that courts cannot become parallel planners or substitute their discretion for that of the executive, the Bombay High Court has set a precedent that discourages rabble-rousing litigation masquerading as public interest.
In effect, the ruling reiterates that:
Policy decisions, if taken after due process, expert input, and statutory compliance, are not amenable to judicial review merely because they displease a vocal few.
And in that lies the true weight of the verdict.
To receive regular updates and notifications, follow The Draft News:
