Janhit Manch (through its President Bhagvanji Raiyani) v. State of Maharashtra
Background
An NGO and its president challenged Mumbai's Transferable Development Rights (TDR) scheme, under which landowners who surrender land for public use (or whose slum land is cleared) are compensated with the right to build extra floor space elsewhere, rather than with cash. The petitioners wanted the scheme curtailed in three specific railway-corridor areas and wanted an expert body set up to review the policy, arguing it worsened congestion and strain on civic infrastructure. The Bombay High Court had already examined the issue in detail, upheld the validity of the scheme (while issuing some directions on using TDR-linked revenue for parks and amenities), and the matter reached the Supreme Court by way of appeal; it also emerged that the appellant's president was himself a builder who had benefited from TDR construction and had lost an unrelated tender dispute shortly before filing this case.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that courts do not sit in appeal over legislative/policy choices on urban planning unless there is manifest arbitrariness or a breach of constitutional rights, and found no such violation here. It emphasized the separation of powers, zoning and development policy is for elected governments and local bodies to decide through a consultative process, not for courts to redesign based on one litigant's preferences. Since the High Court had already scrutinized the TDR scheme thoroughly and issued appropriate directions (such as ring-fencing TDR-related revenue for parks and amenities in the same municipal wards), the Supreme Court found nothing more was warranted and dismissed the appeal, leaving each side to bear its own costs.
Lesson Learnt
Courts generally will not strike down or redesign a government's urban planning or welfare policy just because a petitioner disagrees with its wisdom: judicial review of policy is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness or clear constitutional violation, not a general second-guessing of elected bodies' choices.