Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the controversial Colaba jetty project, observing that the objections amounted to a “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) stance. When the petitioner tried to make an emotional appeal, calling it a case of “amchi Mumbai vs tyanchi Mumbai” (Our Mumbai vs Their Mumbai), the CJI countered, “Amchi Mumbai doesn’t live in Colaba. It lives in Girgaon, Malad, Thane. Only Tyanchi Mumbai lives in Colaba.”
A bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih remarked that modern infrastructure projects often face opposition despite their broader public utility.
The SC was hearing a special leave petition filed by three residents of Colaba and Cuffe Parade, representing over 150 individuals and businesses, seeking a stay on the ongoing piling work. They contended that once the piling begins, it will be nearly impossible to remove it, resulting in significant damage to the environment and the heritage precinct.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said, “The Minister himself told Free Press Journal that the project is for VIPs and cricketers. There are traffic restraints, and it’s coming up without a public hearing, only benefiting a section of society.”
The petitioners argued that the 2014 claim—that a standalone jetty doesn’t need coastal zone clearance—no longer applies to the scale of the current project, which, they said, involves 20 luxury yachts and covers 10 acres in the sea.
To this, the CJI asked, “Have clearances been given?” Hegde responded, “There are clearances which have been pushed through on the basis that this is a standalone jetty, which it is not. We have challenged the clearance.”
Hegde emphasized that the plans were pushed through in 2025 and that they learned about it only when a bhoomi poojan was conducted. He submitted that the work order was issued in 2024, before the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee had cleared the project in its January 2025 meeting.
“Standalone jetties can also accommodate 20-25 yachts,” the CJI observed, drawing a comparison with international marinas. “You go to Miami—this is like NIMBY. Or Not In My Front Yard, in this case.”
Hegde, representing Colaba residents, emphasized traffic concerns: “This is near the Gateway, supposedly to decongest Colaba. But this is a luxury jetty for parties in Alibaug. When film stars and cricketers arrive, traffic will choke the area.”
The bench pressed further: “Have they got the necessary permissions or not?” Hegde insisted, “All clearances were pushed through under the garb of a standalone jetty.”
The CJI remained skeptical, remarking, “This is a ‘not in my front yard’ case. Everyone wants sewage treatment plants, but no one wants them nearby. Everyone opposed the coastal road too. Today, one can reach from South Mumbai to the suburbs in 30 minutes—it used to take three hours before. I myself live in that area.”
As the hearing progressed, the CJI advised the petitioners to approach the High Court: “This matter is listed on June 16 before the High Court. We are not inclined to entertain it here. Request the HC to expedite, preferably before the monsoon.”
Trying to strike an emotional chord, Hegde said, “It’s amchi Mumbai vs tyanchi Mumbai (Our Mumbai vs Their Mumbai).” The CJI countered, “Amchi Mumbai doesn’t live in Colaba. It lives in Girgaon, Malad, Thane. Only Tyanchi Mumbai lives in Colaba.”
CJI Gavai asked whether the project had the necessary clearances, to which Hegde said, “As of now, there are clearances that have been pushed through on the basis that this is a standalone jetty, which it is not… We have challenged the clearance.”
Hegde said the plans were pushed through in 2025. “We came to know only when there was a bhoomi poojan. We objected at that time. We moved the HC. The HC said that in 2024 a work order was issued and we should have come at that point in time. The 2024 work order was issued even before the Heritage Committee had approved the project,” he said.
The apex court refused to grant relief, noting that the matter is pending before the HC. “We are not inclined to entertain the matter since the HC has already fixed it for hearing on June 16. However, we would request the HC to take up the matter and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably prior to the end of monsoon 2025,” the order read.
