SC upholds HC order for construction of verandah outside Chief Justice’s court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order to the Chandigarh Administration to construct a verandah outside the courtroom of its Chief Justice, saying it’s “absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines”.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also upheld the High Court’s February 7 and February 21 orders for placing green paver blocks in the open area being used for parking.

However, in order to give breathing space to the Chandigarh Administration, the top court ordered that the contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court’s order dated December 13 last year shall be kept in abeyance for 12 weeks to enable the Administration comply with the November 29, 2024, order of the High Court.

The order came on the UT Administration’s petition challenging the High Court orders on the grounds that such construction would affect the UNESCO heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex where the High Court building is located. The issue had led to a campaign in Chandigarh to save Rock Garden.

“We are of the view that the decision of the High Court in directing construction of the verandah in front of Courtroom No. 1 in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs in front of Courtroom No. 2 to 9 is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines,” the Bench said.

“At the same time, if so required, the Administration would not be precluded from seeking ex-post facto approval for this minimal protective measure which is considered necessary without admitting any exception,” the top court said.

On behalf of the UT Administration, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had opposed new constructions in the existing HC building on the grounds that it would violate the UNESCO guidelines and might affect its heritage status.

Senior counsel PS Patwalia, who assisted the top court as amicus curiae, supported the UT Administration against constructing a verandah. The very proposal was put up in the year 1956 when the then Chief Justice turned down the suggestion of the Superintending Engineer of the Capitol Project, Chandigarh, to construct an additional verandah in front of Courtroom No. 1. Pointing out that the Administration retracted the said proposal on the instructions of the Chief Justice, he said no deviation was permissible and the decision once taken at the appropriate level cannot be reviewed in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

The Bench accepted the arguments of senior counsel Nidhesh Gupta – representing the High Court – who contended that construction of the verandah in front of Courtroom No. 1 in alignment with the pre-existing verandahs in front of Courtroom No. 2 to 9 would not violate the operational guidelines of UNESCO because neither such verandah can be said to be a major restoration nor a new construction within the main structure of the High Court building. Gupta also “pointed out that during heavy rainfall, rainwater seeps into the Courtroom No. 1 because the lack of the protective projection makes it difficult to prevent the inflow of water into the courtroom.”

Regarding parking space, the Bench said, “It is not in dispute that the said area is already being used by the lawyers and litigants to park their vehicles during court hours. This court was apprised that almost 3,000 to 4,000 four-wheelers are parked in the area on any given working day.”

Since, the land in question is a part of the green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031, the top court said, “While proceeding to place such green paver blocks, the High Court administration may consult with the landscaping experts and ensure plantation of a suitable number of trees at appropriate intervals so as to facilitate parking of maximum number of vehicles and creating shade as well as shelter for the said vehicles and in addition thereto, increasing the green cover in the area.”

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Mehta said, “The green paver blocks are scientifically known eco-friendly alternatives for regular paver blocks because in the middle of each paver block, there is an empty space for planting grass, etc. The suggestion given by learned Solicitor General (representing UT Administration) to plant trees on this open area can still be visualized by planting suitable number of trees at regular intervals in between the green paver blocks. This would simultaneously create a green cover on the ground and so also vertical green cover, thereby enhancing the overall ecological balance of the area.”

The Bench said, “It cannot be gainsaid that the requirement of a proper parking space for the lawyers and the litigants is imperative because the pre-existing facility in the High Court has fallen woefully short. It was meant to cater to 600 four-wheelers, but reportedly 3,000 to 4,000 four-wheeler vehicles access the High Court campus on any given working day, and the number is bound to rise with the passage of time.”

While dealing with a case related to judicial infrastructure filed by Vinod Dhaterwal in 2023, the High Court had on November 29, 2024, directed the UT Administration to construct a verandah in front of Courtroom No. 1 – similar to the ones that already existed in front of Courtroom No. 2 to 9.

However, the Supreme Court had on January 10 stayed the High Court’s order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that it would adversely affect the UNESCO heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex.

Chandigarh