The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s directions for constructing a verandah at Chandigarh’s High Court (a UNESCO World Heritage Site) and laying green paver blocks in a parking area, emphasizing sustainable development over strict adherence to heritage guidelines in this context. The Court found the verandah would not significantly impact the site’s “Outstanding Universal Value” and the pavers were an eco-friendly solution for parking shortages. Contempt proceedings against the Chandigarh Administration were abated for twelve weeks to allow compliance.
Facts Of The Case:
The Chandigarh Administration (CA) appealed against orders issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in a public interest litigation. The High Court had issued a writ of mandamus on November 29, 2024, directing the CA to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1, similar to those existing for Court Rooms No. 2 to 9, within two weeks and complete it in four weeks. When no progress was made, on December 13, 2024, the High Court directed the impleadment of Shri C.B. Ojha, Chief Engineer, UT Administration, and issued a contempt notice against him.Additionally, on February 7, 2025, the High Court issued another writ of mandamus to the CA to lay green pavers and plant sufficient trees in the “kutcha parking” area, allowing it to be used for parking four-wheelers, citing acute shortage of parking space. The CA’s application to recall this order was dismissed on February 21, 2025.The CA argued that the proposed verandah construction could jeopardize the Chandigarh Capitol Complex’s UNESCO World Heritage status, as it was designated in 2016 and any changes require prior communication and concurrence from the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO. Regarding the parking, the CA contended that the area is part of a green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031, and only trees can be planted there, not paver blocks. The High Court administration supported its orders, arguing the verandah was necessary for protection from elements and the pavers were eco-friendly and crucial for parking
Procedural History:
The case originates from a public interest litigation (Civil Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 9 of 2023 (O&M)) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. On November 29, 2024, the High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Chandigarh Administration (CA) to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1. Subsequently, on December 13, 2024, observing the lack of progress, the High Court directed the impleadment of Shri C.B. Ojha, Chief Engineer, UT Administration, and issued a contempt notice against him for non-compliance. In parallel, on February 7, 2025, the High Court issued another writ of mandamus, directing the CA to lay green pavers and plant trees in the “kutcha parking” area. The CA sought to recall this order, but their application (CM-49-CWPIL-2025 in CWP-PIL-9-2023) was dismissed by the High Court on February 21, 2025. The Chandigarh Administration then appealed these orders to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court heard arguments from the Solicitor General of India for the CA, an Amicus Curiae, and senior counsel for the High Court administration. The Supreme Court, after thoughtful consideration, upheld the High Court’s orders regarding both the verandah construction and the green paver blocks, while providing a twelve-week abeyance for the contempt proceedings to allow the CA to comply.
READ ALSO:Fraud Case Closed: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Accused After Bank Settlement
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the proposal for a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 of the High Court was considered as early as 1956, but was rejected by the then Chief Justice based on personal perception rather than a collective decision. The Court found no evidence that the Chandigarh Administration (CA) had actually communicated with the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris, or UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, to seek the necessary permissions for the verandah construction. The Court concluded that the proposed verandah, if constructed in alignment with existing ones and possibly as a collapsible/removable structure, would not be a “major restoration” or “new construction” that would adversely affect the property’s “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV) or be “difficult to reverse”. Modern architectural techniques, the Court noted, could achieve this without altering the main structure. The Court also acknowledged the practical difficulties faced by users of Court Room No. 1 due to lack of protection from the elements, including rainwater seepage.Regarding the green paver blocks for parking, the Court observed the severe shortage of parking space, with thousands of vehicles using the open area daily. While the land is designated as a green belt, the Court adopted a balanced view, citing its precedent that development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. Green paver blocks, the Court noted, offer eco-friendly benefits like preventing dust and mud while allowing water percolation, and can be integrated with tree planting to enhance green cover.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s orders concerning both the construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 and the laying of green paver blocks in the open parking area. The Court found the High Court’s decision to direct verandah construction was “absolutely justified” and would not violate UNESCO guidelines, particularly given that similar verandahs pre-existed and the addition would not constitute a “major restoration” or “new construction” that would significantly impact the High Court building’s “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV) or be irreversible. The Court also highlighted that modern architectural techniques allow for such additions without disturbing the aesthetic value or main structure. Regarding the green paver blocks, the Court upheld the High Court’s orders, emphasizing the acute shortage of parking space and recognizing green pavers as an eco-friendly and sustainable solution that allows for both parking and the planting of trees to enhance green cover. While upholding the orders, the Supreme Court granted a twelve-week abeyance for the contempt proceedings initiated against the Chandigarh Administration’s Chief Engineer, allowing the Administration time to comply with the High Court’s order for the verandah construction. The appeals were disposed of with these observations.
Case Details:
Case Title: CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION V. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 INSC 786 Civil Appeal No(s).:(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 162-163 of 2025) Date of Judgement: May 28, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath, & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here