28 May 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Public Interest Litigation >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

The Supreme Court of India, on May 28, 2025, largely upheld directives issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the construction of a verandah at the High Court building and the laying of green paver blocks in a parking area within the Chandigarh Capitol Complex. The Chandigarh Administration (CA) had appealed against the High Court's orders, primarily concerned about the potential loss of the complex's UNESCO World Heritage status.

The High Court's directives stemmed from a public interest litigation (PIL). Key orders included a mandamus on November 29, 2024, to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1, similar to those already existing for Court Rooms No. 2 to 9, within a specified timeline. Subsequently, on February 7, 2025, the High Court issued another mandamus to lay green pavers and plant trees in a "kutcha parking" area to address acute parking shortages.

Verandah Construction: Balancing Heritage and Utility

The Chandigarh Administration, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, expressed concern that the proposed verandah construction could jeopardize the World Heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, which was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2016 as part of the Architectural Works of Le Corbusier. Mehta emphasized that any changes to such a site typically require prior communication and concurrence from the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO. He stated that the CA had contacted Foundation Le Corbusier in Paris and UNESCO for original maps to assess the construction's impact.

However, the High Court administration, represented by Senior Counsel Nidhesh Gupta, argued that the proposed verandah would be consistent with existing structures and would not significantly impact the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the site. Gupta also highlighted that a proposal for a similar verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 was considered as early as 1956, but was turned down by the then Chief Justice due to personal perception, not architectural limitations. He pointed out the practical necessity, including protection from elements and prevention of rainwater seepage into Court Room No. 1.

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration, agreed with the High Court. It referenced paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, noting that "major restorations or new constructions which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value" should be communicated, particularly if "difficult to reverse". The Court found that the proposed verandah, being consistent with existing structures and potentially even a collapsible or removable design, would not constitute a "major restoration" or "new construction" that would violate these guidelines. The Supreme Court also acknowledged the practical need to protect court users and the building from weather elements.

Green Pavers for Parking: Sustainable Development Approach

Regarding the laying of green paver blocks in the parking area, the CA argued that the area was designated as a green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031, and should be used only for planting trees. They expressed concern that green pavers would irreversibly alter the character of the green belt.

The High Court, conversely, emphasized the severe shortage of parking space, with 3000-4000 four-wheelers reportedly visiting the court daily, far exceeding the capacity of existing facilities. It noted that green pavers are eco-friendly, allowing water percolation and preventing dust and mud formation.

The Supreme Court, drawing on its own precedent in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, affirmed that environment and development are not mutually exclusive and that legitimate development can proceed in harmony with environmental protection through sustainable measures. It accepted that green paver blocks, with appropriate tree plantation, could simultaneously address the parking crisis and maintain green cover.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, upholding the High Court's directives for both the verandah construction and the green paver installation. While acknowledging the CA's concerns regarding the World Heritage status, the Court found the proposed changes to be reasonable and necessary for the functional requirements of the High Court complex without jeopardizing its heritage value. The Court also provided a twelve-week abeyance for contempt proceedings against the Chief Engineer of the Chandigarh Administration to allow for compliance with the High Court's orders.