Chandigarh heritage concerns can’t override development: SC backs verandah, green parking in HC

The court held that the verandah, aligned with existing ones in front of Court Rooms Nos. 2 to 9, “is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines.” It also directed the High Court administration to proceed with laying green paver blocks in the parking area and to ensure tree plantation to enhance green cover.

The bench granted the Chandigarh administration 12 weeks to comply with the verandah directive and stayed contempt proceedings against UT Chief Engineer C.B. Ojha.

Background

The dispute stems from a public interest litigation (CWP No. 9 of 2023) in which the High Court issued a series of orders starting November 29, 2024. It directed the UT administration to build a verandah to shelter litigants and lawyers from extreme weather. The order was reiterated on December 13, 2024, after no action was taken.

On February 7, 2025, the High Court ordered green paver blocks in the kutcha parking area to address severe space constraints. The court noted that the parking lot currently handles 3,000–4,000 vehicles daily, while the underground facility can accommodate only 600.

The Chandigarh administration, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, challenged these directives citing concerns about the potential impact on the Capitol Complex’s UNESCO World Heritage status. He argued that even a seemingly minor modification, such as a verandah, required clearance under Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Committee.

SC rejects UNESCO concern, endorses High Court’s call

The Supreme Court found the administration’s concerns unpersuasive and backed the High Court’s reasoning. “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, the verandah… would not violate the guidelines, because neither can it be said to be a major restoration nor a new construction within the main structure,” the court said.

It added that the High Court is “best placed to take a suitable decision” on preserving the building while ensuring functional utility.

On the parking issue, the bench endorsed the High Court’s “proactive approach,” calling the green paver solution “reasonable” and “a step towards sustained development.”

Quoting from its 2021 judgment in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, the court said, “Environment and development are not sworn enemies… as long as legitimate development activity can be carried on in harmony with environmental protection, courts should strive to uphold that harmony.”

The court also emphasized the inadequacy of existing parking, calling the need for a proper facility “imperative.”

Historical context revisited

The bench validated the High Court’s decision to revisit the 1956 rejection of a similar verandah proposal. It quoted an official communication acknowledging that the construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 had been under consideration at the time but did not proceed due to lack of consent from the then Chief Justice.

“The High Court administration felt a dire need to provide a verandah for the stakeholders,” the bench noted. It also cited instances of rainwater seepage into Court Room No. 1 causing damage and disruption.

Senior counsel Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for the High Court, argued that the verandah was consistent with existing structures and that green pavers would help mitigate environmental issues. The court accepted the submission and directed the High Court administration to consult landscaping experts to ensure adequate tree plantation along the paver-lined area.