The existing location has its advantages. The offices that are to be abandoned (housing most ministries) are close to Parliament House, making it easy for ministers and officials to go back and forth when either House is in session. Also, the city's metro system has major lines meeting at Central Secretariat, whereas only a single line will serve the proposed new complex; office-goers and visitors will not find a change to their convenience. From the security point of view, it is easier to control the heart of Lutyens' Delhi than to lock down a much larger area - as would be required in the event of a terrorist threat.
If the move does take place, seven or eight large office buildings, famous if not notorious as New Delhi's cavernous "Bhavans", which are to be vacated, will need to find new uses. One proposal is to locate new museums in them, though which ones is not clear; in any case India has no museums of the size required to fill even one of the Bhavans. Nor can it be assumed that buildings designed as offices are suitable as museums, which have special requirements. Another proposal is to rent them out to private parties; what would that do to the character of the area, now blessed with the patina of history and heritage? Meanwhile, what about Nehru Bhavan, constructed only recently between Shastri Bhavan and the National Museum, as the home of the ministry of external affairs? Or Sena Bhavan, the army headquarters located a stone's throw from the defence minister's office, which it would appear will continue to be in South Block? Is that to be abandoned too? If such buildings are to be excluded from the shift, what is the purpose achieved by building the new complex?
There is the possibly related business of Parliament House itself, said to be an unsafe structure some 85 years after it was built. There was a move once to put up a completely new building at the other end of Vijay Chowk, at the foot of Raisina Hill, but that seems to have been given up. Yet, the existing building does not seem to be getting the attention it needs if it is indeed unsafe in any way - and potentially in danger of collapse in the event of a sizeable earthquake. It is as well to recall that buildings can be renewed in situ, while retaining their historical character - some years ago the Reichstag in Berlin was completely re-built from the inside as a modern structure, with a striking new glass dome, while preserving the exterior stone façade. Surely it is possible to learn from such experiments, instead of looking for ahistorical solutions that are impractical in the first place.