Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 786
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 162-163 of 2025)
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH
COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 9042-9043 of 2025)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
2. Leave granted.
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.28
17:49:27 IST
Reason:
1
1
3. Chandigarh Administration is in appeal
th th
against the orders dated 29 November, 2024; 13
th st
December, 2024; 7 February, 2025; and 21
February, 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab
2
and Haryana at Chandigarh in a public interest
3
litigation whereby the High Court directed as below:-
th
“ Order dated 29 November, 2024
Construction of Verandah in front of Court
Room No.1
Submissions
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for UT
Administration informs that proposed map of the
Verandah covering outside of Court Room No.1 has
been sent to Archaeological Survey of India for
th
approval: It is also informed that in the 24
meeting of Chandigarh Heritage Conservation
Committee (CHCC) held on 19.09.2024 in-
principle proposal was granted for construction of
the said Verandah in front of Court Room No.1
subject to contacting Foundation Le Corbusier
Paris for sharing the required drawings/data
related to this project.
This Court on 13.11.2024 had refrained from
issuing any direction in the backdrop of assurance
that Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee
are being consulted and the UT Administration
after due consultation shall revert back within 10
days. This Court had passed a preemptory order
that in case, the aforesaid assurance does not turn
1
Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘CA’ or “appellant”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
3
Civil Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 9 of 2023 (O&M).
2
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
out to be true by the next date of hearing, then this
Court will be compelled to issue a writ of
mandamus to the UT Administration for
construction of verandah in front of Court Room
No.1, which is dire need of the hour.
Directions
A writ of mandamus is issued to UT
Administration to start construction of
verandah in front of Court Room No.1 in line
with and of the same type as already exists in
front of Court Rooms No. 2 to 9, within a period
of two weeks and complete the process of
construction within four weeks thereafter.
th
Order dated 13 December, 2024
Construction of verandah in front of Court
Room No. 1
On the last date of hearing, in this regard, a Writ
of Mandamus was issued directing the U.T.
Administration to start construction of verandah
in front of Court Room No. 1 in line with and of the
same type as already existing in front of Court
Rooms No. 2 to 9 within a period of two weeks and
complete the process of construction within four
weeks thereafter.
Despite lapse of two weeks from the last date of
hearing, no effort has been taken by the U.T.
Administration to show that the process of
construction has commenced.
As such, this Court directs the Registry to
implead Shri C.B. Ojha, Chief Engineer, U.T.
Administration as party and on doing so
contempt notice be issued against Shri C.B.
Ojha to explain as to why contempt proceedings
be not commenced and he be not punished for
3
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
causing contempt of Writ of Mandamus issued
on 29.11.2024.
Order dated 7th February, 2025
(As regards Kutcha Parking)
It is informed by learned counsel for the High
Court that on the suggestion made by this Court
under this head vide order dated 24.01.2025, the
Building Committee was unsuccessful in
convincing the U.T. Administration to allow green
pavers to be laid in the area of kutcha parking with
adequate number of trees to be planted so that the
green cover can be restored and the vacant space
can be used for parking purposes.
This Court is of the considered view that the
suggestion made by this Court on earlier occasion
for restoration of green cover and simultaneously
laying green pavers for parking was not only
reasonable but a step towards sustained
development.
There is extreme shortage of parking space in the
open areas provided for parking behind the
heritage building of Punjab and Haryana High
Court. On any given hour, during working session
of the High Court, about 3000-4000 four wheelers
daily visit the High Court out of which at least
2000; if not more, are permanently parked. The
existing underground multilevel parking which
has three tiers can accommodate only 600 four
wheelers while the remaining vehicles are parked
in the open parking areas which also fall short and
therefore, there is need to use the kutcha parking
area which is opposite the three tiers multilevel
underground parking.
The green pavers are meant to allow water to
percolate down to replenish ground level water and
therefore, are much beneficial and eco- friendly as
4
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
compared to pavements or roads. In this manner,
the objection of U.T. Administration that the said
area of kutcha parking is earmarked within the
capital complex as a green belt/forest, will also be
taken care of and the dire need for parking space
can be satisfied. More so, the plantation of at least
200 or more trees in the said kutcha parking is
possible to increase the green cover and facilitating
the four wheelers to be parked.
Despite the U.T. Administration having made
available the additional parking space of about
200 four wheelers near the junction of Janmarg
and Uttar Marg, the said facilitation does not
resolve the problem of acute shortage of space
for parking within the High Court premises. As
such, this Court is constrained to pass the
following directions as regards kutcha parking:-
Writ of mandamus is issued to the U.T.
Administration to lay green pavers in the
kutcha parking and plant sufficient number of
trees at reasonable intervals with tree guards
providing space for parking and allow this
kutcha parking to be used for parking of four
wheelers visiting the High Court
Order dated 21st February, 2025
(Dismissing application seeking recall of order
dated 7th February, 2025)
3. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid extract of
the order dated 07.02.2025 pertaining to kutcha
parking, it is obvious that this Court had dwelt
upon all the pros and cons and the acute problem
of dire scarcity of space for parking in the High
Court premises before passing the said order. This
Court had also, taken note of the anxiety expressed
by the U.T. Administration that the said area of
kutcha parking is notified as a green belt while
directing that the kutcha parking space, which is
presently denuded of trees, will not only be laid
5
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
with green pavers, but also plantation of 100 to
200 trees will take place, so that the green belt is
preserved and so also the need for parking is
catered to.
3.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, the
order passed by this Court on 07.02.2025
facilitates sustained development and,
therefore, is rather in the interest of the U.T.
Administration and would greatly help in
resolving the crisis of acute shortage of parking
space in the High Court.
4. Consequently, no ground for recalling of the
order dated 07.02.2025 is made out and,
therefore, CM-49-CWPIL-2025 in CWP-PIL-9-
2023 stands dismissed. ”
4. Addressing the first issue regarding
construction of verandah in front of Court Room No.
1 of the High Court, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned
Solicitor General of India, appearing for the CA
vehemently and fervently urged that the
administration does not have any quarrel in principle
with the proposed construction of the verandah in
th
compliance of the order dated 29 November, 2024
passed by the High Court. However, the
administration is concerned with imminent
possibility of the loss of World Heritage status of the
Chandigarh Capitol Complex, which includes the
Assembly, the High Court and the Secretariat,
6
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
designed by the celebrated architect, Mons. Le
Corbusier, who planned the entire city of
Chandigarh. It is a matter of grave concern to the CA
that the High Court building forms part of the
4
UNESCO World Heritage Site, and it may loose its
World Heritage status owing to unauthorized
deviation/modification in its façade/structure.
5. He submitted that the Chandigarh Capitol
Complex which includes the High Court building,
was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in
the year 2016 as a part of the Trans-Border Serial
Nomination for the Architectural Works of Mons. Le
Corbusier, which consists of 17 sites spread across 7
countries. As per the applicable guidelines, any
proposed changes in the World Heritage Site are to be
communicated to the World Heritage Committee,
UNESCO in advance and their concurrence is to be
sought, failing which, there is a risk of the site losing
its World Heritage status.
6. Shri Mehta urged that CA has already
communicated with the Foundation Le Corbusier,
4
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Paris and the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO,
to forward the original maps of the High Court
building so that the issue of constructing the
verandah can be proactively examined and a
considered decision can be taken without posing any
threat to the World Heritage status of the High Court
building.
7. Shri Mehta submitted that the CA is also alive
to the situation that the open area in front of Court
Room No. 1 of the High Court building is exposed to
the elements. CA does not dispute the fact that
litigants and lawyers who use this area have no
protection from sun, winds and rain. He urged that it
would not cause any harm if the matter could be
deferred by a few weeks so as to give some breathing
space to the CA for procuring the requisite
permissions.
8. It was contended that the authorities have been
able to procure hand drawn maps prepared by Mons.
Le Corbusier wherein there is no provision for a
verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 of the High
Court building which is an integral part of the World
Heritage Site.
8
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
9. He thus, urged that the Division Bench of High
Court was not justified in exercising its extraordinary
writ jurisdiction so as to issue a writ of mandamus
directing changes in the façade of the building
without waiting for the requisite permissions from
the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO.
10. For finding a logical solution to the problem of
exposure, the Department of Urban Planning, Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee (Uttarakhand)
has been requested to conduct Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) of the proposed verandah and to
provide a suitable design which, in turn, would be
forwarded to the World Heritage Committee,
UNESCO for approval and only thereafter, can the
idea of constructing a verandah over the said area
can be materialized while protecting the World
Heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex
which includes the High Court building.
11. Shri Mehta also drew the Court’s attention to
the mail forwarded by the Architect of CA to the
Architect at Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris,
requesting for the drawing plans of the original
building so that the alterations, if any, could be
9
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
undertaken by adhering to the protocols and
guidelines as applicable to the World Heritage Sites
and to ensure that the authenticity of Outstanding
5
Universal Value of Chandigarh Capitol Complex of
which the High Court building is an integral part, can
be maintained.
12. Regarding the issue of the green paver blocks
for creation of parking space in the open area near
the High Court building as directed by the Division
Bench, it was the contention of Shri Mehta that this
open area is part of the green belt under the
Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031 and can be used for
planting trees only and no deviation is permissible
under the Master Plan. Shri Mehta urged that the
importance of vertical greenery in the city of
Chandigarh cannot be understated and if the green
paver blocks as proposed in the impugned order
th
dated 7 February, 2025 are affixed on this open
space, the very character of the green belt area will
be altered irreversibly thereby eliminating any
possibility of restoring vertical green cover on the said
land.
5
Hereinafter, referred to as “OUV”.
10
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
13. Shri Mehta urged that the CA is taking proactive
measures to sort out the issue of providing parking
spaces for the lawyers and other visitors to the Court
Complex and it has proposed to plant sufficient
number of trees with green guards on the subject
land area at regular intervals thereby providing green
cover for the vehicles to be parked in that space.
14. Shri Mehta further submitted that the writ
petitioner had earlier sought a mandamus for the
construction of multi-level parking on the aforesaid
th
open area. However, during the 45 Session of the
World Heritage Committee, UNESCO at Riyadh
th
Conference, a recommendation was made on 6
October, 2024 that the said project shall be
suspended in view of the negative impacts resulting
from the HIA reports, which recommended finding
alternative solutions for ensuring that the OUV of the
property is not impacted.
15. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel
appearing as Amicus Curiae, also supported the
submissions advanced by learned Solicitor General,
Shri Tushar Mehta. He submitted that the very same
proposal was put up in the year 1956 when the then
11
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Chief Justice turned down the suggestion of the
Superintending Engineer of the Capitol Project,
Chandigarh to construct an additional verandah in
front of Court Room No. 1. He urged that the
administration retracted the said proposal on the
instructions of the Chief Justice and thus, no
deviation is permissible. The decision once taken at
the appropriate level cannot be reviewed in exercise
of the writ jurisdiction.
16. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the High Court
administration, has supported the impugned orders.
He urged that as per paragraph 172 of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
6
World Heritage Convention , relied upon by the CA in
th
its additional affidavit dated 5 May, 2025,
restriction is placed on major restorations or new
constructions which may affect the OUV of the
property. The convention requires that notice should
be given, as soon as possible, before drawing up the
basic documents for specific projects and before
making any decisions ‘that would be difficult to
6
For short “Operational Guidelines”.
12
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
reverse’, so that the Committee may assist in seeking
appropriate solutions and ensure that the OUV of the
property is fully preserved.
17. Shri Gupta submitted that the Court Room Nos.
2 to 9, which are in the same alignment as the Court
Room No. 1, already have a pre-existing verandah
which is 12 feet high and provides wholesome
protection from sun, winds and rain, etc. to the
stakeholders, i.e., the litigants, lawyers, etc. who
frequent the High Court premises. The proposal to
construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
was approved by the Division Bench after extensive
deliberations and taking opinions from experts. The
proposed verandah would be exactly in sync and
alignment with the pre-existing verandah in front of
Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 and will not have any adverse
impact on the OUV of the World Heritage Site. He
urged that paragraph 172 of the Operational
Guidelines only provides that any major restorations
or new constructions which may affect the OUV of the
property and are irreversible should be undertaken
after due approval from the World Heritage
Committee, UNESCO.
13
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
18. Shri Gupta submitted that the verandah
proposed to be constructed cannot be said to be a
permanent structure which cannot be removed.
Hence, the additional verandah cannot be termed to
be a structure which can never be removed and the
decision is not irreversible.
19. Shri Gupta further referred to the letter dated
th
17 May, 1956 placed on record by the CA along with
th
the additional affidavit dated 5 May, 2025 wherein
it is clearly provided that the construction of the
additional verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
similar to the verandah in front of the smaller Court
Rooms i.e., Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 had been
proposed by Chandigarh Administration and refers to
a suggestion made by the Architect Mons. Le
Corbusier. The proposal was forwarded to the High
Court and the then Chief Justice acting in his
personal capacity turned down the proposal on the
ground that it would cause disturbance in the Court
work as people would collect in front of the main
Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1 and chat.
20. Shri Gupta submitted that this observation as
th
resonating in the letter dated 17 May, 1956 was
14
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
based on the personal perception of the Chief Justice
and was a decision taken after consultation in the full
Court. It is not such a decision which cannot be
reviewed even on the administrative side. He
submitted that the dynamics of Court functioning
have altered significantly over the last 70 years, and
the High Court administration felt a dire need to
provide a verandah for the stakeholders. He further
submitted that the verandah would be of immense
help in preserving the structure and ambience of
Court Room No. 1 as it would protect the same from
the elements. Shri Gupta pointed out that there have
been numerous instances when rainwater seeped
into Court Room No. 1 owing to the lack of protective
covering thereby damaging the interiors and caused
severe inconvenience in the functioning of the Court.
21. Regarding the aspect of green paver blocks, Shri
Gupta urged that on any given working day, almost
3000 to 4000 vehicles of advocates, litigants and
officials are being parked in the open area where the
High Court has directed the laying of the green paver
blocks. He urged that by their very design, the green
paver blocks merge with the natural surroundings
15
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
and they allow rainwater to percolate into the ground.
The significant advantages which would be gained by
laying of such blocks are (i) eliminating the possibility
of blowing of dust and sand because of frequent
movement of the vehicles on the open area; and (ii)
eliminating the possibility of formation of sludge and
muddy surfaces during rainy season.
22. Shri Gupta urged that the submission of
learned Solicitor General that a parking area can be
created by planting trees on the open land can still
be visualized by ensuring that same number of trees
are planted at regular intervals between the green
paver blocks.
23. Shri Gupta thus urged that no interference is
called for in the impugned orders which were passed
after objective consideration of all the prevailing
facts, after seeking scientific opinion and analyzing
the ground realities.
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone
through the impugned orders passed by the High
Court.
16
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
th
25. In compliance with the order dated 9 May,
2025 passed by this Court, Shri Nidhesh Gupta,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
High Court administration, has filed written
submissions. However, despite opportunity being
granted by this Court, the CA (appellant herein) has
not filed its written submissions.
26. We shall deal with the two issues arising from
the impugned orders separately.
A. Issue of construction of verandah in front of
Court Room No. 1
27. The most fervent submission of learned Solicitor
General appearing for the CA (appellant herein), in
assailing the orders passed by the High Court was
that the same may lead to the structure of the High
Court and the Chandigarh Capitol Complex losing
the World Heritage status. In support of this
contention, an additional affidavit has been filed
annexing therewith extract of paragraph 172 of the
Operational Guidelines which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
“ 172- The Word Heritage Committee invites the
States Parties to the Convention to inform the
17
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Committee, through the Secretariat, of their
intention to undertake or to authorize in an area
protected under the Convention major restorations
or new constructions which may affect the
Outstanding Universal Value of the property.
Notice should be given as soon as possible (for
instance, before drafting basic documents for
specific projects) and before making any decisions
that would be difficult to reverse, so that the
Committee may assist in seeking appropriate
solutions to ensure that the Outstanding Universal
Value of the property is fully preserved.”
28. A careful and holistic perusal of the aforesaid
guidelines would indicate that the OUV of the
property is likely to be affected if major restorations
or new constructions are attempted on the structure
having World Heritage status. The guidelines give a
clear indication that the decision should not be such
‘that it would be difficult to reverse’.
[Emphasis supplied]
29. At this stage, we may refer to the letter dated
th
17 May, 1956 placed on record by the appellant, i.e.,
the CA along with an additional affidavit. The said
letter was forwarded by the Senior Architect of the
Government of Punjab, Capitol Project to the
Superintending Engineer, Capitol Project,
Chandigarh, and is extracted below: -
18
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
“ D.O. No. 168-Arch 56/
2664
Dated Chandigarh 17th May 56.
Subject: High Court Building- Additional
Verandah in front of the Main Court Room.
…………………..
My dear Mr. Khanna,
Kindly refer to our discussion on the above
mentioned subject.
2. You proposed that an additional verandah
similar to the verandah in front of the small
court room suggested by Mons: Le Corbusier,
should be constructed in front of the main court
room as well.
th
3. On 14 instant, Mr. A.N. Bhandari, Chief Justice,
desired me to send my assistant Mr. Malhotra to
him to explain some of the drawings which we had
sent him. I am told by Mr. Malhotra that during the
explanation of the drawings, the Chief Justice
desired not to have any verandah in front of the
main court room as he thought that it would cause
disturbance in his work because the people would
collect in front of the main court room and chat. He
is of the opinion that the people who will be waiting
for the next hearing in his court could wait in the
new verandah which is to be built in front of the
small court.
Keeping in view the desire of the Chief Justice,
I think we should not change at this stage the
original proposal made by Mons: Le Corbusier.
Yours Sincerely,
Sd/-
(Pierre Jeanneret)
Mr. G.C. Khanna,
Superintending Engineer,
19
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Capital Project, Chandigarh.
……………………..
th
No: 168-Arch-56/2665 Dated the 17 May,
1956.
A copy is forwarded to the Registrar, Punjab, High
Court of Judicature, Chandigarh, for the
information of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Sd/-
(Pierre Jeanneret)
Senior Architect to Govt. Punjab,
Capital Project.
……………………….. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
30. The letter makes clear reference to the fact that
the construction of an additional verandah in front of
main Court Room, i.e., Court Room No. 1 similar to
the verandah in front of the small Court Rooms was
in consideration of the Government authorities way
back in 1956. It is a different story that the then Chief
Justice of the High Court proceeded to turn down the
said proposal based on his personal perception
without any collective discussion.
31. Hence, we have no doubt in our minds that the
construction of the verandah in front of the main
Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1 was being mooted
by the Concerned Authority way back in 1956 and
20
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
had the Chief Justice consented, the construction
would have happened long back. The only contention
of the appellant for opposing the construction of the
verandah is that the request to approve the proposal
for raising the verandah has already been forwarded
to the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris but reply has
not been received till date. Learned Solicitor General,
Shri Mehta was very fair and candid in his
submissions that the CA is not agitating this issue as
an adversarial litigation and the only concern of the
authorities is that the building may loose its OUV and
consequently the World Heritage status, if the
verandah is constructed without procuring the
requisite permissions from the World Heritage
Committee, UNESCO.
32. On going through the record, we find that none
of the documents placed on record by the appellant
give any indication to the effect that till date any
communication has actually been made either with
the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris or the World
Heritage Committee, UNESCO, seeking permission to
raise construction of the verandah in front of the
main Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1.
21
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
33. The proposal given by Shri Patwalia, learned
senior counsel that till the approval is received from
the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris and the World
Heritage Committee, UNESCO, a temporary
tin/metal shed can be put up in front of Court Room
No. 1 does not merit consideration. Putting up any
such contraption in front of Court Room No. 1 would
completely destroy the aesthetic value of the High
Court building.
34. We are satisfied with the submission of Shri
Gupta appearing for the High Court administration
that even as per paragraph 172 of the Operational
Guidelines, construction of the verandah in front of
Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the pre-existing
verandahs in front of the Court Room Nos. 2 to 9,
would not violate the aforesaid guidelines 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.
35. Going by the pictures of the building placed on
record, we find that the pre-existing verandahs in
front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 are in the form of
projections supported by steel/metal pipes.
22
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
36. Needless to state, that the modern architectural
techniques have progressed by leaps and bounds.
New construction materials and techniques are
available in the market which can be employed to
construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
exactly identical to the one which is existing in front
of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 without disturbing the
aesthetic value of the main structure and without
requiring any kind of modification/alteration in the
main structure. The additional verandah can even be
in the form of a collapsible/removable structure, if so
required. This can be easily achieved by using
services of experts from IIT, Roorkee [It may be
mentioned here that the administration itself, on the
issue of green paver blocks, has taken the expert
opinion from IIT, Roorkee]. Such an addition would
unquestionably not violate the mandate of paragraph
172 of the Operational Guidelines ( supra ) thereby
posing a risk to the OUV of the High Court building.
37. The reasons for the construction of the
verandah have been highlighted in the order of the
High Court and we have no reason to take a different
view. The High Court administration is best placed to
23
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
take a suitable decision as to what are the precise
requirements for preservation of the building and
simultaneously provide protection to the
stakeholders from the elements. It cannot be gainsaid
that the High Court administration is under an
obligation to provide appropriate facilities for the
lawyers and the litigants who throng the Courts. The
coloured photographs of the building taken during
the working hours of the Court demonstrate that
while Court Room Nos. 2 to 9, which have the pre-
existing verandahs, provide shelter to the lawyers
and litigants and at the same time the area in front
of the Court Room No. 1 is unprotected and exposes
the lawyers and the litigants to sun, winds and rain.
38. Shri Gupta pointed out that during heavy
rainfall, rainwater seeps into the Court Room No. 1
because the lack of the protective projection makes it
difficult to prevent the inflow of water into the Court
room.
39. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
view 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
24
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
verandahs in front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 is
absolutely justified and would not violate the
UNESCO guidelines. 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 impugned
th th
orders dated 29 November, 2024 and 13
December, 2024 do not warrant interference by this
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
B. Laying of green paver blocks in open parking
area
40. Now, coming to the aspect of laying green paver
blocks on the open land in front of the High Court
th
building as directed vide order dated 7 February,
2025.
41. 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 3000 to 4000 four-wheeler vehicles are
parked in the area on any given working day. This
practice has been prevalent since last many years
25
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
because the pre-existing parking facility has fallen
woefully short with the efflux of time and increase of
footfall into the High Court campus. True, it is that
the land in question is a part of the green belt under
the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031, however, this
Court has time and again addressed this issue and
has provided that for sustainable development, a
balanced view is necessary.
42. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeev Suri v.
7
Delhi Development Authority
, wherein inter alia a
challenge was laid to the change in the land use of
certain plots in connection with the Central Vista
Project without taking prior permission/approval of
the Heritage Conservation Committee. The Central
Government defended the decision by urging that
suitable deviations including change in land use can
be allowed and the public trust doctrine does not
prohibit the Government from utilizing the resources
held in public trust for the advancement of public
interest itself. The said submission made on behalf of
the Government found favour with this Court and it
7
2021 SCC OnLine SC 7.
26
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
was held that legitimate development activity can be
carried on in harmony with the idea of environmental
protection and preservation including sustainable
development. Relevant excerpts from the said
judgment are extracted hereinbelow: -
“374. Indubitably, environment and
development are not sworn enemies of each
other. It would be an anomalous approach to
consider environment as a hurdle in
development and vice-versa. The entities like
EAC and NGT are created to strike a just
balance between two competing interests and a
time-tested principle of striking this balance is
timely invocation of mitigating environmental
measures amidst a development activity. True
that mere application of certain mitigating
measures may not alleviate environmental
concerns in all matters and in some
circumstances, the project is simply
incomprehensible with the environment. But as
long as a legitimate development activity can
be carried on in harmony with the idea of
environmental protection and preservation
including sustainable development, the Courts
as well as expert bodies should make their best
endeavour to ensure that harmony is upheld
and hurdles are minimized by resorting to
active mitigating measures.
379. The proper balance of judicial review in
environmental matters in a constantly
developing society is a matter of great debate
across all jurisdictions. In Ethyl Corporation v.
EPA377, the observations of Judge Wright
present a just balance. He observed thus:
“There is no inconsistency between the
deferential standard of review and the
27
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
requirement that the reviewing court
involve itself in even the most complex
evidentiary matters; rather, the two indicia
of arbitrary and capricious review stand in
careful balance. The close scrutiny of the
evidence is intended to educate the court.
It must understand enough about the
problem confronting the agency to
comprehend the meaning of the evidence
relied upon and the evidence discarded; the
questions addressed by the agency and
those bypassed; the choices open to the
agency and those made. The more technical
the case, the more intensive the court’s
effort to understand the evidence, for
without an appropriate understanding of
the case before it the court cannot properly
perform its appellate function. …”
He then notes the need for realising the
limits of judicial function thus:
“But the function must be performed with
conscientious awareness of its limited
nature. The enforced education into the
intricacies of the problem before the agency
is not designed to enable the court to
become a superagency that can supplant
the agency’s expert decision-maker. To the
contrary, the court must give due deference
to the agency’s ability to rely on its own
developed expertise. The immersion in the
evidence is designed solely to enable the
court to determine whether the agency
decision was rational and based on
consideration of the relevant factors. It is
settled that we must affirm decisions with
which we disagree so long as this test is
met…”
28
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
380. They must always look for a careful
balance when two equally relevant interests
compete with each other. The task may not be
easy, but is the only reasonable recourse. For
the proper application of these principles, the
first and foremost thing to be kept in mind is
the nature of the project ……………”
[Emphasis supplied]
43. 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-wheeler vehicles but reportedly,
3000 to 4000 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.
Undeniably, when the vehicular movement takes
place on the open land, dust would be blown up
thereby polluting the atmosphere and causing the
risk of allergies, etc. In addition, thereto, the particles
which blow up may precipitate on the High Court
building thereby creating a layer of dust and
pollutants on its exterior and disrupting its aesthetic
façade.
29
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
44. 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 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.
45. In view of the above, we hereby uphold the
th st
orders dated 7 February, 2025 and 21 February,
2025 passed by the High Court for placing green
paver blocks in the open area being used for parking.
However, 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. This exercise shall be
30
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
monitored by the concerned Committee of the High
Court.
46. In order to give a breathing space to the CA
(appellant herein), it is provided that the contempt
th
proceedings initiated vide order dated 13 December,
2024 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of twelve
weeks so as to enable the CA (appellant herein) to
th
comply with the order dated 29 November, 2024
passed by the High Court.
47. With these observations, the appeals are
disposed of.
48. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
May 28, 2025.
31
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 162-163 of 2025)
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH
COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 9042-9043 of 2025)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
2. Leave granted.
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.28
17:49:27 IST
Reason:
1
1
3. Chandigarh Administration is in appeal
th th
against the orders dated 29 November, 2024; 13
th st
December, 2024; 7 February, 2025; and 21
February, 2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab
2
and Haryana at Chandigarh in a public interest
3
litigation whereby the High Court directed as below:-
th
“ Order dated 29 November, 2024
Construction of Verandah in front of Court
Room No.1
Submissions
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for UT
Administration informs that proposed map of the
Verandah covering outside of Court Room No.1 has
been sent to Archaeological Survey of India for
th
approval: It is also informed that in the 24
meeting of Chandigarh Heritage Conservation
Committee (CHCC) held on 19.09.2024 in-
principle proposal was granted for construction of
the said Verandah in front of Court Room No.1
subject to contacting Foundation Le Corbusier
Paris for sharing the required drawings/data
related to this project.
This Court on 13.11.2024 had refrained from
issuing any direction in the backdrop of assurance
that Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee
are being consulted and the UT Administration
after due consultation shall revert back within 10
days. This Court had passed a preemptory order
that in case, the aforesaid assurance does not turn
1
Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘CA’ or “appellant”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
3
Civil Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 9 of 2023 (O&M).
2
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
out to be true by the next date of hearing, then this
Court will be compelled to issue a writ of
mandamus to the UT Administration for
construction of verandah in front of Court Room
No.1, which is dire need of the hour.
Directions
A writ of mandamus is issued to UT
Administration to start construction of
verandah in front of Court Room No.1 in line
with and of the same type as already exists in
front of Court Rooms No. 2 to 9, within a period
of two weeks and complete the process of
construction within four weeks thereafter.
th
Order dated 13 December, 2024
Construction of verandah in front of Court
Room No. 1
On the last date of hearing, in this regard, a Writ
of Mandamus was issued directing the U.T.
Administration to start construction of verandah
in front of Court Room No. 1 in line with and of the
same type as already existing in front of Court
Rooms No. 2 to 9 within a period of two weeks and
complete the process of construction within four
weeks thereafter.
Despite lapse of two weeks from the last date of
hearing, no effort has been taken by the U.T.
Administration to show that the process of
construction has commenced.
As such, this Court directs the Registry to
implead Shri C.B. Ojha, Chief Engineer, U.T.
Administration as party and on doing so
contempt notice be issued against Shri C.B.
Ojha to explain as to why contempt proceedings
be not commenced and he be not punished for
3
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
causing contempt of Writ of Mandamus issued
on 29.11.2024.
Order dated 7th February, 2025
(As regards Kutcha Parking)
It is informed by learned counsel for the High
Court that on the suggestion made by this Court
under this head vide order dated 24.01.2025, the
Building Committee was unsuccessful in
convincing the U.T. Administration to allow green
pavers to be laid in the area of kutcha parking with
adequate number of trees to be planted so that the
green cover can be restored and the vacant space
can be used for parking purposes.
This Court is of the considered view that the
suggestion made by this Court on earlier occasion
for restoration of green cover and simultaneously
laying green pavers for parking was not only
reasonable but a step towards sustained
development.
There is extreme shortage of parking space in the
open areas provided for parking behind the
heritage building of Punjab and Haryana High
Court. On any given hour, during working session
of the High Court, about 3000-4000 four wheelers
daily visit the High Court out of which at least
2000; if not more, are permanently parked. The
existing underground multilevel parking which
has three tiers can accommodate only 600 four
wheelers while the remaining vehicles are parked
in the open parking areas which also fall short and
therefore, there is need to use the kutcha parking
area which is opposite the three tiers multilevel
underground parking.
The green pavers are meant to allow water to
percolate down to replenish ground level water and
therefore, are much beneficial and eco- friendly as
4
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
compared to pavements or roads. In this manner,
the objection of U.T. Administration that the said
area of kutcha parking is earmarked within the
capital complex as a green belt/forest, will also be
taken care of and the dire need for parking space
can be satisfied. More so, the plantation of at least
200 or more trees in the said kutcha parking is
possible to increase the green cover and facilitating
the four wheelers to be parked.
Despite the U.T. Administration having made
available the additional parking space of about
200 four wheelers near the junction of Janmarg
and Uttar Marg, the said facilitation does not
resolve the problem of acute shortage of space
for parking within the High Court premises. As
such, this Court is constrained to pass the
following directions as regards kutcha parking:-
Writ of mandamus is issued to the U.T.
Administration to lay green pavers in the
kutcha parking and plant sufficient number of
trees at reasonable intervals with tree guards
providing space for parking and allow this
kutcha parking to be used for parking of four
wheelers visiting the High Court
Order dated 21st February, 2025
(Dismissing application seeking recall of order
dated 7th February, 2025)
3. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid extract of
the order dated 07.02.2025 pertaining to kutcha
parking, it is obvious that this Court had dwelt
upon all the pros and cons and the acute problem
of dire scarcity of space for parking in the High
Court premises before passing the said order. This
Court had also, taken note of the anxiety expressed
by the U.T. Administration that the said area of
kutcha parking is notified as a green belt while
directing that the kutcha parking space, which is
presently denuded of trees, will not only be laid
5
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
with green pavers, but also plantation of 100 to
200 trees will take place, so that the green belt is
preserved and so also the need for parking is
catered to.
3.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, the
order passed by this Court on 07.02.2025
facilitates sustained development and,
therefore, is rather in the interest of the U.T.
Administration and would greatly help in
resolving the crisis of acute shortage of parking
space in the High Court.
4. Consequently, no ground for recalling of the
order dated 07.02.2025 is made out and,
therefore, CM-49-CWPIL-2025 in CWP-PIL-9-
2023 stands dismissed. ”
4. Addressing the first issue regarding
construction of verandah in front of Court Room No.
1 of the High Court, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned
Solicitor General of India, appearing for the CA
vehemently and fervently urged that the
administration does not have any quarrel in principle
with the proposed construction of the verandah in
th
compliance of the order dated 29 November, 2024
passed by the High Court. However, the
administration is concerned with imminent
possibility of the loss of World Heritage status of the
Chandigarh Capitol Complex, which includes the
Assembly, the High Court and the Secretariat,
6
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
designed by the celebrated architect, Mons. Le
Corbusier, who planned the entire city of
Chandigarh. It is a matter of grave concern to the CA
that the High Court building forms part of the
4
UNESCO World Heritage Site, and it may loose its
World Heritage status owing to unauthorized
deviation/modification in its façade/structure.
5. He submitted that the Chandigarh Capitol
Complex which includes the High Court building,
was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in
the year 2016 as a part of the Trans-Border Serial
Nomination for the Architectural Works of Mons. Le
Corbusier, which consists of 17 sites spread across 7
countries. As per the applicable guidelines, any
proposed changes in the World Heritage Site are to be
communicated to the World Heritage Committee,
UNESCO in advance and their concurrence is to be
sought, failing which, there is a risk of the site losing
its World Heritage status.
6. Shri Mehta urged that CA has already
communicated with the Foundation Le Corbusier,
4
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
7
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Paris and the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO,
to forward the original maps of the High Court
building so that the issue of constructing the
verandah can be proactively examined and a
considered decision can be taken without posing any
threat to the World Heritage status of the High Court
building.
7. Shri Mehta submitted that the CA is also alive
to the situation that the open area in front of Court
Room No. 1 of the High Court building is exposed to
the elements. CA does not dispute the fact that
litigants and lawyers who use this area have no
protection from sun, winds and rain. He urged that it
would not cause any harm if the matter could be
deferred by a few weeks so as to give some breathing
space to the CA for procuring the requisite
permissions.
8. It was contended that the authorities have been
able to procure hand drawn maps prepared by Mons.
Le Corbusier wherein there is no provision for a
verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 of the High
Court building which is an integral part of the World
Heritage Site.
8
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
9. He thus, urged that the Division Bench of High
Court was not justified in exercising its extraordinary
writ jurisdiction so as to issue a writ of mandamus
directing changes in the façade of the building
without waiting for the requisite permissions from
the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO.
10. For finding a logical solution to the problem of
exposure, the Department of Urban Planning, Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee (Uttarakhand)
has been requested to conduct Heritage Impact
Assessment (HIA) of the proposed verandah and to
provide a suitable design which, in turn, would be
forwarded to the World Heritage Committee,
UNESCO for approval and only thereafter, can the
idea of constructing a verandah over the said area
can be materialized while protecting the World
Heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex
which includes the High Court building.
11. Shri Mehta also drew the Court’s attention to
the mail forwarded by the Architect of CA to the
Architect at Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris,
requesting for the drawing plans of the original
building so that the alterations, if any, could be
9
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
undertaken by adhering to the protocols and
guidelines as applicable to the World Heritage Sites
and to ensure that the authenticity of Outstanding
5
Universal Value of Chandigarh Capitol Complex of
which the High Court building is an integral part, can
be maintained.
12. Regarding the issue of the green paver blocks
for creation of parking space in the open area near
the High Court building as directed by the Division
Bench, it was the contention of Shri Mehta that this
open area is part of the green belt under the
Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031 and can be used for
planting trees only and no deviation is permissible
under the Master Plan. Shri Mehta urged that the
importance of vertical greenery in the city of
Chandigarh cannot be understated and if the green
paver blocks as proposed in the impugned order
th
dated 7 February, 2025 are affixed on this open
space, the very character of the green belt area will
be altered irreversibly thereby eliminating any
possibility of restoring vertical green cover on the said
land.
5
Hereinafter, referred to as “OUV”.
10
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
13. Shri Mehta urged that the CA is taking proactive
measures to sort out the issue of providing parking
spaces for the lawyers and other visitors to the Court
Complex and it has proposed to plant sufficient
number of trees with green guards on the subject
land area at regular intervals thereby providing green
cover for the vehicles to be parked in that space.
14. Shri Mehta further submitted that the writ
petitioner had earlier sought a mandamus for the
construction of multi-level parking on the aforesaid
th
open area. However, during the 45 Session of the
World Heritage Committee, UNESCO at Riyadh
th
Conference, a recommendation was made on 6
October, 2024 that the said project shall be
suspended in view of the negative impacts resulting
from the HIA reports, which recommended finding
alternative solutions for ensuring that the OUV of the
property is not impacted.
15. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel
appearing as Amicus Curiae, also supported the
submissions advanced by learned Solicitor General,
Shri Tushar Mehta. He submitted that the very same
proposal was put up in the year 1956 when the then
11
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Chief Justice turned down the suggestion of the
Superintending Engineer of the Capitol Project,
Chandigarh to construct an additional verandah in
front of Court Room No. 1. He urged that the
administration retracted the said proposal on the
instructions of the Chief Justice and thus, no
deviation is permissible. The decision once taken at
the appropriate level cannot be reviewed in exercise
of the writ jurisdiction.
16. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the High Court
administration, has supported the impugned orders.
He urged that as per paragraph 172 of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
6
World Heritage Convention , relied upon by the CA in
th
its additional affidavit dated 5 May, 2025,
restriction is placed on major restorations or new
constructions which may affect the OUV of the
property. The convention requires that notice should
be given, as soon as possible, before drawing up the
basic documents for specific projects and before
making any decisions ‘that would be difficult to
6
For short “Operational Guidelines”.
12
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
reverse’, so that the Committee may assist in seeking
appropriate solutions and ensure that the OUV of the
property is fully preserved.
17. Shri Gupta submitted that the Court Room Nos.
2 to 9, which are in the same alignment as the Court
Room No. 1, already have a pre-existing verandah
which is 12 feet high and provides wholesome
protection from sun, winds and rain, etc. to the
stakeholders, i.e., the litigants, lawyers, etc. who
frequent the High Court premises. The proposal to
construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
was approved by the Division Bench after extensive
deliberations and taking opinions from experts. The
proposed verandah would be exactly in sync and
alignment with the pre-existing verandah in front of
Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 and will not have any adverse
impact on the OUV of the World Heritage Site. He
urged that paragraph 172 of the Operational
Guidelines only provides that any major restorations
or new constructions which may affect the OUV of the
property and are irreversible should be undertaken
after due approval from the World Heritage
Committee, UNESCO.
13
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
18. Shri Gupta submitted that the verandah
proposed to be constructed cannot be said to be a
permanent structure which cannot be removed.
Hence, the additional verandah cannot be termed to
be a structure which can never be removed and the
decision is not irreversible.
19. Shri Gupta further referred to the letter dated
th
17 May, 1956 placed on record by the CA along with
th
the additional affidavit dated 5 May, 2025 wherein
it is clearly provided that the construction of the
additional verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
similar to the verandah in front of the smaller Court
Rooms i.e., Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 had been
proposed by Chandigarh Administration and refers to
a suggestion made by the Architect Mons. Le
Corbusier. The proposal was forwarded to the High
Court and the then Chief Justice acting in his
personal capacity turned down the proposal on the
ground that it would cause disturbance in the Court
work as people would collect in front of the main
Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1 and chat.
20. Shri Gupta submitted that this observation as
th
resonating in the letter dated 17 May, 1956 was
14
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
based on the personal perception of the Chief Justice
and was a decision taken after consultation in the full
Court. It is not such a decision which cannot be
reviewed even on the administrative side. He
submitted that the dynamics of Court functioning
have altered significantly over the last 70 years, and
the High Court administration felt a dire need to
provide a verandah for the stakeholders. He further
submitted that the verandah would be of immense
help in preserving the structure and ambience of
Court Room No. 1 as it would protect the same from
the elements. Shri Gupta pointed out that there have
been numerous instances when rainwater seeped
into Court Room No. 1 owing to the lack of protective
covering thereby damaging the interiors and caused
severe inconvenience in the functioning of the Court.
21. Regarding the aspect of green paver blocks, Shri
Gupta urged that on any given working day, almost
3000 to 4000 vehicles of advocates, litigants and
officials are being parked in the open area where the
High Court has directed the laying of the green paver
blocks. He urged that by their very design, the green
paver blocks merge with the natural surroundings
15
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
and they allow rainwater to percolate into the ground.
The significant advantages which would be gained by
laying of such blocks are (i) eliminating the possibility
of blowing of dust and sand because of frequent
movement of the vehicles on the open area; and (ii)
eliminating the possibility of formation of sludge and
muddy surfaces during rainy season.
22. Shri Gupta urged that the submission of
learned Solicitor General that a parking area can be
created by planting trees on the open land can still
be visualized by ensuring that same number of trees
are planted at regular intervals between the green
paver blocks.
23. Shri Gupta thus urged that no interference is
called for in the impugned orders which were passed
after objective consideration of all the prevailing
facts, after seeking scientific opinion and analyzing
the ground realities.
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone
through the impugned orders passed by the High
Court.
16
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
th
25. In compliance with the order dated 9 May,
2025 passed by this Court, Shri Nidhesh Gupta,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
High Court administration, has filed written
submissions. However, despite opportunity being
granted by this Court, the CA (appellant herein) has
not filed its written submissions.
26. We shall deal with the two issues arising from
the impugned orders separately.
A. Issue of construction of verandah in front of
Court Room No. 1
27. The most fervent submission of learned Solicitor
General appearing for the CA (appellant herein), in
assailing the orders passed by the High Court was
that the same may lead to the structure of the High
Court and the Chandigarh Capitol Complex losing
the World Heritage status. In support of this
contention, an additional affidavit has been filed
annexing therewith extract of paragraph 172 of the
Operational Guidelines which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
“ 172- The Word Heritage Committee invites the
States Parties to the Convention to inform the
17
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Committee, through the Secretariat, of their
intention to undertake or to authorize in an area
protected under the Convention major restorations
or new constructions which may affect the
Outstanding Universal Value of the property.
Notice should be given as soon as possible (for
instance, before drafting basic documents for
specific projects) and before making any decisions
that would be difficult to reverse, so that the
Committee may assist in seeking appropriate
solutions to ensure that the Outstanding Universal
Value of the property is fully preserved.”
28. A careful and holistic perusal of the aforesaid
guidelines would indicate that the OUV of the
property is likely to be affected if major restorations
or new constructions are attempted on the structure
having World Heritage status. The guidelines give a
clear indication that the decision should not be such
‘that it would be difficult to reverse’.
[Emphasis supplied]
29. At this stage, we may refer to the letter dated
th
17 May, 1956 placed on record by the appellant, i.e.,
the CA along with an additional affidavit. The said
letter was forwarded by the Senior Architect of the
Government of Punjab, Capitol Project to the
Superintending Engineer, Capitol Project,
Chandigarh, and is extracted below: -
18
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
“ D.O. No. 168-Arch 56/
2664
Dated Chandigarh 17th May 56.
Subject: High Court Building- Additional
Verandah in front of the Main Court Room.
…………………..
My dear Mr. Khanna,
Kindly refer to our discussion on the above
mentioned subject.
2. You proposed that an additional verandah
similar to the verandah in front of the small
court room suggested by Mons: Le Corbusier,
should be constructed in front of the main court
room as well.
th
3. On 14 instant, Mr. A.N. Bhandari, Chief Justice,
desired me to send my assistant Mr. Malhotra to
him to explain some of the drawings which we had
sent him. I am told by Mr. Malhotra that during the
explanation of the drawings, the Chief Justice
desired not to have any verandah in front of the
main court room as he thought that it would cause
disturbance in his work because the people would
collect in front of the main court room and chat. He
is of the opinion that the people who will be waiting
for the next hearing in his court could wait in the
new verandah which is to be built in front of the
small court.
Keeping in view the desire of the Chief Justice,
I think we should not change at this stage the
original proposal made by Mons: Le Corbusier.
Yours Sincerely,
Sd/-
(Pierre Jeanneret)
Mr. G.C. Khanna,
Superintending Engineer,
19
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
Capital Project, Chandigarh.
……………………..
th
No: 168-Arch-56/2665 Dated the 17 May,
1956.
A copy is forwarded to the Registrar, Punjab, High
Court of Judicature, Chandigarh, for the
information of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Sd/-
(Pierre Jeanneret)
Senior Architect to Govt. Punjab,
Capital Project.
……………………….. ”
[Emphasis supplied]
30. The letter makes clear reference to the fact that
the construction of an additional verandah in front of
main Court Room, i.e., Court Room No. 1 similar to
the verandah in front of the small Court Rooms was
in consideration of the Government authorities way
back in 1956. It is a different story that the then Chief
Justice of the High Court proceeded to turn down the
said proposal based on his personal perception
without any collective discussion.
31. Hence, we have no doubt in our minds that the
construction of the verandah in front of the main
Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1 was being mooted
by the Concerned Authority way back in 1956 and
20
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
had the Chief Justice consented, the construction
would have happened long back. The only contention
of the appellant for opposing the construction of the
verandah is that the request to approve the proposal
for raising the verandah has already been forwarded
to the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris but reply has
not been received till date. Learned Solicitor General,
Shri Mehta was very fair and candid in his
submissions that the CA is not agitating this issue as
an adversarial litigation and the only concern of the
authorities is that the building may loose its OUV and
consequently the World Heritage status, if the
verandah is constructed without procuring the
requisite permissions from the World Heritage
Committee, UNESCO.
32. On going through the record, we find that none
of the documents placed on record by the appellant
give any indication to the effect that till date any
communication has actually been made either with
the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris or the World
Heritage Committee, UNESCO, seeking permission to
raise construction of the verandah in front of the
main Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1.
21
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
33. The proposal given by Shri Patwalia, learned
senior counsel that till the approval is received from
the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris and the World
Heritage Committee, UNESCO, a temporary
tin/metal shed can be put up in front of Court Room
No. 1 does not merit consideration. Putting up any
such contraption in front of Court Room No. 1 would
completely destroy the aesthetic value of the High
Court building.
34. We are satisfied with the submission of Shri
Gupta appearing for the High Court administration
that even as per paragraph 172 of the Operational
Guidelines, construction of the verandah in front of
Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the pre-existing
verandahs in front of the Court Room Nos. 2 to 9,
would not violate the aforesaid guidelines 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.
35. Going by the pictures of the building placed on
record, we find that the pre-existing verandahs in
front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 are in the form of
projections supported by steel/metal pipes.
22
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
36. Needless to state, that the modern architectural
techniques have progressed by leaps and bounds.
New construction materials and techniques are
available in the market which can be employed to
construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1
exactly identical to the one which is existing in front
of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 without disturbing the
aesthetic value of the main structure and without
requiring any kind of modification/alteration in the
main structure. The additional verandah can even be
in the form of a collapsible/removable structure, if so
required. This can be easily achieved by using
services of experts from IIT, Roorkee [It may be
mentioned here that the administration itself, on the
issue of green paver blocks, has taken the expert
opinion from IIT, Roorkee]. Such an addition would
unquestionably not violate the mandate of paragraph
172 of the Operational Guidelines ( supra ) thereby
posing a risk to the OUV of the High Court building.
37. The reasons for the construction of the
verandah have been highlighted in the order of the
High Court and we have no reason to take a different
view. The High Court administration is best placed to
23
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
take a suitable decision as to what are the precise
requirements for preservation of the building and
simultaneously provide protection to the
stakeholders from the elements. It cannot be gainsaid
that the High Court administration is under an
obligation to provide appropriate facilities for the
lawyers and the litigants who throng the Courts. The
coloured photographs of the building taken during
the working hours of the Court demonstrate that
while Court Room Nos. 2 to 9, which have the pre-
existing verandahs, provide shelter to the lawyers
and litigants and at the same time the area in front
of the Court Room No. 1 is unprotected and exposes
the lawyers and the litigants to sun, winds and rain.
38. Shri Gupta pointed out that during heavy
rainfall, rainwater seeps into the Court Room No. 1
because the lack of the protective projection makes it
difficult to prevent the inflow of water into the Court
room.
39. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
view 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
24
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
verandahs in front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 is
absolutely justified and would not violate the
UNESCO guidelines. 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 impugned
th th
orders dated 29 November, 2024 and 13
December, 2024 do not warrant interference by this
Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
B. Laying of green paver blocks in open parking
area
40. Now, coming to the aspect of laying green paver
blocks on the open land in front of the High Court
th
building as directed vide order dated 7 February,
2025.
41. 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 3000 to 4000 four-wheeler vehicles are
parked in the area on any given working day. This
practice has been prevalent since last many years
25
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
because the pre-existing parking facility has fallen
woefully short with the efflux of time and increase of
footfall into the High Court campus. True, it is that
the land in question is a part of the green belt under
the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031, however, this
Court has time and again addressed this issue and
has provided that for sustainable development, a
balanced view is necessary.
42. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the
judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeev Suri v.
7
Delhi Development Authority
, wherein inter alia a
challenge was laid to the change in the land use of
certain plots in connection with the Central Vista
Project without taking prior permission/approval of
the Heritage Conservation Committee. The Central
Government defended the decision by urging that
suitable deviations including change in land use can
be allowed and the public trust doctrine does not
prohibit the Government from utilizing the resources
held in public trust for the advancement of public
interest itself. The said submission made on behalf of
the Government found favour with this Court and it
7
2021 SCC OnLine SC 7.
26
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
was held that legitimate development activity can be
carried on in harmony with the idea of environmental
protection and preservation including sustainable
development. Relevant excerpts from the said
judgment are extracted hereinbelow: -
“374. Indubitably, environment and
development are not sworn enemies of each
other. It would be an anomalous approach to
consider environment as a hurdle in
development and vice-versa. The entities like
EAC and NGT are created to strike a just
balance between two competing interests and a
time-tested principle of striking this balance is
timely invocation of mitigating environmental
measures amidst a development activity. True
that mere application of certain mitigating
measures may not alleviate environmental
concerns in all matters and in some
circumstances, the project is simply
incomprehensible with the environment. But as
long as a legitimate development activity can
be carried on in harmony with the idea of
environmental protection and preservation
including sustainable development, the Courts
as well as expert bodies should make their best
endeavour to ensure that harmony is upheld
and hurdles are minimized by resorting to
active mitigating measures.
379. The proper balance of judicial review in
environmental matters in a constantly
developing society is a matter of great debate
across all jurisdictions. In Ethyl Corporation v.
EPA377, the observations of Judge Wright
present a just balance. He observed thus:
“There is no inconsistency between the
deferential standard of review and the
27
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
requirement that the reviewing court
involve itself in even the most complex
evidentiary matters; rather, the two indicia
of arbitrary and capricious review stand in
careful balance. The close scrutiny of the
evidence is intended to educate the court.
It must understand enough about the
problem confronting the agency to
comprehend the meaning of the evidence
relied upon and the evidence discarded; the
questions addressed by the agency and
those bypassed; the choices open to the
agency and those made. The more technical
the case, the more intensive the court’s
effort to understand the evidence, for
without an appropriate understanding of
the case before it the court cannot properly
perform its appellate function. …”
He then notes the need for realising the
limits of judicial function thus:
“But the function must be performed with
conscientious awareness of its limited
nature. The enforced education into the
intricacies of the problem before the agency
is not designed to enable the court to
become a superagency that can supplant
the agency’s expert decision-maker. To the
contrary, the court must give due deference
to the agency’s ability to rely on its own
developed expertise. The immersion in the
evidence is designed solely to enable the
court to determine whether the agency
decision was rational and based on
consideration of the relevant factors. It is
settled that we must affirm decisions with
which we disagree so long as this test is
met…”
28
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
380. They must always look for a careful
balance when two equally relevant interests
compete with each other. The task may not be
easy, but is the only reasonable recourse. For
the proper application of these principles, the
first and foremost thing to be kept in mind is
the nature of the project ……………”
[Emphasis supplied]
43. 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-wheeler vehicles but reportedly,
3000 to 4000 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.
Undeniably, when the vehicular movement takes
place on the open land, dust would be blown up
thereby polluting the atmosphere and causing the
risk of allergies, etc. In addition, thereto, the particles
which blow up may precipitate on the High Court
building thereby creating a layer of dust and
pollutants on its exterior and disrupting its aesthetic
façade.
29
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
44. 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 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.
45. In view of the above, we hereby uphold the
th st
orders dated 7 February, 2025 and 21 February,
2025 passed by the High Court for placing green
paver blocks in the open area being used for parking.
However, 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. This exercise shall be
30
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters
monitored by the concerned Committee of the High
Court.
46. In order to give a breathing space to the CA
(appellant herein), it is provided that the contempt
th
proceedings initiated vide order dated 13 December,
2024 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of twelve
weeks so as to enable the CA (appellant herein) to
th
comply with the order dated 29 November, 2024
passed by the High Court.
47. With these observations, the appeals are
disposed of.
48. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
May 28, 2025.
31
C.A. @ SLP (C) No(s). 162-163 of 2025 with connected matters