Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the High Court's directions for construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 and the laying of green paver blocks in the open parking area do not violate UNESCO guidelines or the Chandigarh Master Plan. The Court upheld the writs of mandamus issued by the High Court and granted twelve weeks' time to the Chandigarh Administration to comply. The apex court dismissed the appeals filed by the Chandigarh Administration and declined to interfere with the impugned orders.

The Chandigarh Administration challenged a series of directions issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in a public interest litigation concerning infrastructural additions and modifications to the heritage building of the High Court. The challenged orders included a writ of mandamus directing construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 and the conversion of kutcha land into a parking area using green paver blocks.

Also Read: Supreme Court Denies Bail In ₹3200 Crore Liquor Scam | S.161 CrPC Statement Of Accused Cannot Be Used Against Co-Accused At Bail Stage

The High Court issued directions through orders dated 29th November 2024, 13th December 2024, 7th February 2025, and 21st February 2025. The first of these orders required the Chandigarh Administration to commence construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 within two weeks and complete the construction within four weeks. This was followed by a contempt notice issued against the Chief Engineer of the Chandigarh Administration for non-compliance.

The Administration argued that the construction of a verandah could compromise the World Heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, which includes the High Court, Secretariat, and Legislative Assembly designed by Le Corbusier. The Solicitor General of India submitted that the verandah was not part of the original design and might constitute unauthorized modification. The Administration had contacted the Foundation Le Corbusier and UNESCO for guidance and was awaiting original maps and permissions.

The appellant further contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the construction without obtaining prior UNESCO approval. It cited Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, which mandates prior notice to the World Heritage Committee before executing any irreversible changes.

In relation to parking, the High Court had directed the Administration to lay green paver blocks on kutcha land being used for vehicle parking, citing severe parking shortages. The Solicitor General opposed the order, asserting that the land was designated as green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 and could not be used for construction. The Administration proposed planting trees and retaining the land as open green space.

Amicus Curiae Shri P.S. Patwalia supported the Administration’s arguments, noting that a similar proposal had been declined in 1956 by the then Chief Justice, who opposed the verandah due to concerns over noise and congregation in front of Court Room No. 1.

Representing the High Court administration, Shri Nidhesh Gupta submitted that Court Rooms 2 to 9 already had verandahs of similar design. He maintained that the proposed structure would align with the existing ones, would be removable, and would not constitute an irreversible modification. The High Court had thoroughly examined the need for weather protection and the architectural integrity before passing the order.

Shri Gupta also contended that the earlier rejection in 1956 was a personal administrative decision, not an architectural constraint. He stated modern needs and submitted evidence of rainwater ingress into Court Room No. 1 due to the absence of shelter.

Regarding green paver blocks, Shri Gupta argued they are environmentally friendly and improve rainwater percolation. He submitted that parking demand had far exceeded the capacity of existing facilities, and the suggested solution would serve ecological and functional purposes. The proposal envisaged planting trees at intervals between green paver blocks to maintain vertical green cover.

"The most fervent submission...was that the same may lead to the structure of the High Court...losing the World Heritage status."

"The guidelines give a clear indication that the decision should not be such 'that it would be difficult to reverse'."

"The construction of the verandah in front of the main Court Room...was being mooted by the Concerned Authority way back in 1956."

"The only contention of the appellant...is that the request to approve the proposal...has already been forwarded...but reply has not been received till date."

"None of the documents placed on record by the appellant give any indication...that any communication has actually been made...seeking permission to raise construction."

"Putting up any such contraption...would completely destroy the aesthetic value of the High Court building."

"The additional verandah can even be in the form of a collapsible/removable structure...without disturbing the aesthetic value of the main structure."

"The High Court administration is under an obligation to provide appropriate facilities for the lawyers and the litigants who throng the Courts."

"We have no reason to take a different view...The High Court administration is best placed to take a suitable decision..."

"Green paver blocks are scientifically known eco-friendly alternatives...planting suitable number of trees...would enhance the overall ecological balance of the area."

"It would simultaneously create a green cover...and vertical green cover...creating shade and shelter...and increasing the green cover in the area."

The Court held that "the decision of the High Court in directing construction of the verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs...is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines." The Court further clarified that if required, the Administration may seek ex-post facto approval from UNESCO.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Order On Claim Amendment | No Change In Nature Of Claim And Delay Alone Not Enough To Interfere | Dismisses SAIL Plea Against H. R. Construction

With respect to parking, the Court upheld the order for laying green paver blocks and stated: "The High Court administration may consult with the landscaping experts and ensure plantation of a suitable number of trees at appropriate intervals...facilitating parking...creating shade...and increasing green cover."

Additionally, the Court ordered: "The contempt proceedings initiated vide order dated 13th December, 2024 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of twelve weeks...to enable the CA...to comply with the order dated 29th November, 2024."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Ms. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.; Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.; Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.; Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv.; Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR.

For the Respondents: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR; Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv.; Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv.; Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv.; Mr. Manu Bhardwaj, Adv.; Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Varun Aryan Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR.

Case Title: Chandigarh Administration vs. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 786

Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 162-163 of 2025)

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Download order]