Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (September 1) dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Colaba residents challenging the Bombay High Court's decision to uphold the construction of a jetty facility near the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and Gateway of India in South Mumbai.

A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran today heard arguments from Senior Advocates CU Singh and Shiraz Rustomjee for the petitioners and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State.

Singh submitted that the residents were not opposed to decongestion of the area but objected to shifting the jetty by merely 250 metres. He contended that the appropriate environmental authorities had not been consulted, and that the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority or the Central authority should to have been involved.

“Actual body which should be consulted is not consulted. Either the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority or the Central”, he said.

Rustomjee argued that the proposal would increase the number of jetties from five to twenty while remaining on the same road, thus failing to achieve decongestion. He pointed to a study by NITI Aayog showing that 75 percent of passengers arriving by boat would still walk to the Gateway of India and questioned whether the project was being pursued for the remaining 25 percent. He added that the area was already congested with double parking and could not accommodate additional density.

“The entire reason is that they want to decongest the Gateway of India. You are proposing to make 5 jetties 20. You are just shifting the same thing to just 250 metres on the same road. Your own study says that 75 percent people that come on boats will walk down to visit the Gateway. So are you doing this for the 25 percent who will not visit? Those roads are already choked; double parking is the norm. They cannot handle this kind of density” he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the Western Naval Command had recommended the location near Radio Club in Apollo Bandar for security reasons. When the Chief Justice observed that it was an NOC rather than a recommendation, Mehta maintained that it was indeed a recommendation.

He argued that the High Court correctly recorded the finding that the jetty was distinct from the port, and that it would reduce travel time to destinations like Alibaug and Mandwa to one-third while easing traffic congestion. Producing a traffic management study, Mehta submitted that the plan would increase average vehicle speed and reduce delays.

Mehta further stated that under the present arrangement, passengers often move across multiple boats to reach their designated one, which leads to accidents because the sea remains unstable. He described the challenge as a “not in my backyard” objection.

“Currently the scenario is that if a passenger has a ticket for boat no. 5, he will have to go to boat 1, then jump to boat 2, then to 3 and so on. It causes accidents, people falling in because the sea is never stable. This is just a "don't want it in my backyard" challenge”, he said.

Chief Justice Gavai observed that the issue could not be seen only from the perspective of nearby residents. The Court then dismissed the SLP.

“It cannot be looked that only from the angle of the people who are residing in those buildings. Mr. (Sanjay) Hegde had earlier argued that it is an issue of Aamchi Mumbai v. Thamchi Mumbai. I said Aamchi Mumbai does not stay in that area. They are in Goregaon, Dombivli etc.” CJI BR Gavai said.

Background

The Bombay High Court, in its July 15 judgment, had upheld the Maharashtra Government and Maharashtra Maritime Board's decision to construct the jetty near the Radio Club, adjacent to the Gateway of India.

The High Court directed that the amphitheatre be used only as a seating area for passengers, the restaurant or café provide only water and packed food products without dining facilities, and the existing jetties be discontinued in a phased manner as directed by the Indian Navy.

Petitioners had argued that the project would damage the heritage character of the area and worsen traffic congestion. The State, through Advocate General Dr Birendra Saraf, had countered that the facility had been a requirement for 25 years and had undergone review by all relevant departments, with IIT-Bombay reports confirming no harm to sea-facing structures.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 24633/2025

Case Title – Clean Heritage Colaba Residents Association (CHCRA) v. State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order