Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, on Tuesday, explained the difference between ‘Aamchi Mumbai’ and ‘Tyanchi Mumbai’ during a hearing on a petition against the passenger jetty and terminal facilities project near the Gateway of India.
The two Marathi phrases, which mean ‘Our Mumbai’ and ‘Their Mumbai’ respectively were used by a senior lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner against a passenger jetty project in Colaba.
“It is between ‘Aamchi Mumbai’ and ‘Tyanchi Mumbai’ – sometimes that is where the difference lies.” The lawyer was referring to the difference between the interests of common people (Aamchi Mumbai) and elite people (Tyanchi Mumbai), NDTV quoted the lawyer as saying in regards to the case, .
Also Read: HC refuses to stay piling work for Colaba passenger jetty
CJI Gavai responded to the argument and gave his take on them, saying, “‘Aamchi Mumbai’ does not live in Colaba. It is only ‘Tyanchi Mumbai’ that lives in Colaba. ‘Aamchi Mumbai’ lives in Malad, Thane, Ghatkopar.”
Petition rejected by CJI
The petition against the installation of a passenger jetty and terminal facility in Colaba was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association, an association of over 400 residents of Colaba, along with the petitioner.
The Supreme Court bench rejected the petition and said, “It is like this – everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind my house. In the city, when something good is happening, everybody approaches the Supreme Court.”
Also Read: Mumbai rain breaks 107-year record, marks earliest monsoon in 75 years
“You can see what the benefits of the coastal road are? A person from South Mumbai reaches Versova in 40 minutes, and earlier it used to take three hours,” the report quoted CJI Gavai.
The Chief Justice also stated that such projects had been implemented globally, citing Miami, a coastal city in the United States which features such amenities.
“This huge project is going to come up for the benefit of only a particular section of society, and this is coming up without any public hearing, without any clearances,” the petitioners counsel claimed.