SC Rebukes Delhi Government For 'Breach' Of RRTS Funding Commitment, Sets One-Week Deadline For Payment

The Supreme Court has granted the Delhi government a period of seven days to promptly transfer its allocated funds for the Delhi-Alwar and Delhi-Panipat Regional Rapid Rail Transit System (RRTS) corridors.

According to a report from The Indian Express, the court dismissed the Delhi government's assertion that the funds would only be released after the central government approves of the project, highlighting that other states involved had already transferred their respective shares in 2019 and 2020.

The court refuted the Delhi government's argument that it had made budgetary provisions for the project and was awaiting central approval before releasing the funds.

Senior advocate S Muralidhar, representing the Delhi government, emphasised that the funds would be released once the government of India approves the project.

However, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Aparajita Singh countered this by emphasising that the state had committed to adhering to the agreed-upon payment schedule and insisted on timely payments to avoid escalating project costs, often incurred due to delays in public projects funded through loans.

Attorney General R Venkataramani expressed optimism about the project approval.

The court, while cautioning the state government not to bring the matter to a point where the court would need to revive its 21 November order, granted a seven-day timeframe for the funds' transfer.

In a previous order on 21 November, the Supreme Court had reprimanded the Delhi government for a perceived breach of its commitment to contribute funds to the RRTS project, directing it to make the payment within a week.

Failure to comply would result in the redirection of the state's advertising funds to the project.

In response to the court's directive, the Delhi government claimed to have provided Rs 415 crore through a sanction order dated 24 November.

However, the Amicus Curiae highlighted that the sanction order itself indicated "partial compliance" with the court order.

The court emphasised that there should be no room for partial compliance and insisted on complete adherence to the agreed-upon schedule.