The Supreme Court of India has granted approval to Reliance Industries for the development of public open spaces along the Mumbai Coastal Road, as per the ruling in Jipnesh Narendra Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and AS Chandurkar, who instructed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to evaluate Reliance’s master layout plan in alignment with a prior Supreme Court order. This clarification was sought by Reliance concerning the proposed Mumbai Coastal Road Garden and Promenade project.
In its decision from January 12, the Court emphasized that these areas must remain accessible to the public, allowing free use while maintaining high standards of upkeep. The earlier judgment also noted that Reliance had committed to utilizing no more than 15% of the total area for recreational activities that involve ticketing or restricted access facilities.
The roots of this legal dispute trace back to a decision by the BMC, reportedly made in 2025, to appoint Reliance Industries under its corporate social responsibility initiative to manage landscaping and long-term maintenance of these public open spaces. This decision faced a challenge through a public interest litigation (PIL) which raised concerns about potential commercialization and deviation from intended use.
However, in January, a Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar dismissed these concerns as unfounded, asserting that the planned development of parks, gardens, promenades, and other amenities was vital for Mumbai’s urban and ecological progress. They clarified that while some visitor-oriented recreational facilities could be established in limited sections, no residential or commercial development for sale or lease would be allowed.
Following these directives, Reliance approached the Supreme Court again to verify that their revised master layout and concept design adhered to the January judgment, seeking to proceed with their plans. Their application indicated an approach to the BMC for preliminary approval of the revised layout, which was subsequently reviewed by the civic body’s Landscaping Committee.
More Read
The Committee deliberated whether certain proposed recreational or ticketed facilities required Supreme Court approval. Although the proposal received an in-principle recommendation, progress stalled due to concerns over needing explicit approval from the apex court.
On June 11, the Supreme Court noted the standstill in project progress due to the lack of perceived Supreme Court approval, despite the Committee’s recommendation. The Court instructed that the BMC could consider the master layout plan without contravening its January 12 order.
The Court reiterated that Reliance must not engage in activities that would breach the earlier order from January 12, 2026. Nevertheless, it accepted Reliance’s assurance that no more than 15% of the area would be designated for ticketed or access-controlled recreational activities.
More Read
With this June 11 ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified the project’s path forward, subject to adherence to the conditions outlined in its previous judgment, and left it to the BMC to review the master layout plan in accordance with legal standards.
The petitioner in this case was represented by Advocate Somanatha Padhan, while the respondents were represented by Advocates Ashish Batra, Ashish Wad, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Manoj Wad, Swati Arya, Deepanshu Verma, and Akash Kakade.
