CJI Gavai Highlights Class Divide in Mumbai During Jetty Project Hearing
New Delhi, 28th May 2025: Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, on Tuesday, weighed in on the perceived socio-economic divide within Mumbai while hearing a petition challenging the proposed passenger jetty and terminal project near the Gateway of India.
The observation came during arguments presented by a senior advocate representing the petitioners, who used the Marathi expressions ‘Aamchi Mumbai’ (Our Mumbai) and ‘Tyanchi Mumbai’ (Their Mumbai) to underline the divide between the city’s common residents and its elite. The lawyer suggested that such infrastructure developments often cater to privileged localities while sidelining the interests of the broader population.
Responding to the argument, CJI Gavai remarked, “Those who represent ‘Aamchi Mumbai’ don’t reside in Colaba. That part of the city belongs to *‘Tyanchi Mumbai’. ‘Aamchi Mumbai’ lives in places like Malad, Thane, and Ghatkopar.” His comment was a clear reflection on the disparity in how public projects are perceived and received across different socio-economic sections of the city.
The petition was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association, comprising over 400 Colaba residents, opposing the jetty and terminal facility project on environmental and procedural grounds. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting the contradictory stance of urban residents who oppose developments in their neighbourhoods while expecting broader urban improvement.
“It’s a classic case—everyone agrees on the need for a sewage treatment plant, but objects when it’s placed near their home. In urban areas, when developmental projects are initiated, people often rush to the courts,” the bench observed.
Chief Justice Gavai also pointed to the tangible benefits of recent infrastructure projects, citing the coastal road that now connects South Mumbai to Versova in under an hour—a commute that previously took nearly three hours. He further referred to international examples such as Miami, where similar coastal developments have been successfully executed.
In contrast, the petitioners’ counsel argued that the jetty project lacked public consultation and had not received proper clearances, alleging it primarily served the interests of a select few rather than the wider population.
