‘Aamchi Mumbai’ vs ‘Tyanchi Mumbai’: SC sparks debate while rejecting Colaba Jetty plea

Gateway of India, Mumbai

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition opposing a proposed passenger jetty and terminal facility near Mumbai’s historic Gateway of India, even as an unusual yet pointed debate unfolded in court over the meaning of "Aamchi Mumbai" (our Mumbai) and "Tyanchi Mumbai" (their Mumbai).

During the hearing, Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, who led the bench, offered a candid take on the socio-geographic divide embedded in the Marathi phrases, which have long captured the contrast between Mumbai’s working-class majority and its elite pockets.

"'Aamchi Mumbai' does not live in Colaba. It is only 'Tyanchi Mumbai' that lives in Colaba. 'Aamchi Mumbai' lives in Malad, Thane, Ghatkopar," said CJI Gavai, as quoted by NDTV.

The observation came after the petitioners’ counsel, representing the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association - a group of over 400 residents - argued that the jetty project primarily catered to the privileged few, bypassing public hearings and regulatory clearances. “It is between 'Aamchi Mumbai' and 'Tyanchi Mumbai'—sometimes that is where the difference lies,” NDTV quoted the lawyer as saying in regards to the case.

The Supreme Court, however, refused to stay the project. Drawing a parallel with urban development challenges, the report quoted CJI Gavai as saying, “Everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind my house. In the city, when something good is happening, everybody approaches the Supreme Court.”

The CJI further pointed to infrastructure benefits from other projects like Mumbai’s coastal road, saying, “A person from South Mumbai reaches Versova in 40 minutes; earlier, it used to take three hours.”

Responding to concerns about global precedence and environmental impact, the CJI remarked that such developments were not unusual internationally. “If you go to Miami, there are so many,” he said, about similar waterfront infrastructure abroad.

The petitioners had sought the court's intervention, alleging the project lacked transparency and was moving forward without involving the local community. However, the bench noted that the Bombay High Court was already hearing the matter and advised that it be resolved there before the onset of the monsoon.