Premium

HC gives two months for renovating GRP building at Chandigarh railway station

The petition raised issues of public safety, dignity of police personnel and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution

2 min readChandigarhJan 20, 2026 11:15 AM IST

The petition drew the court’s attention to the unsafe condition of the GRP police station, a British era structure that has not undergone substantial repair or modernisation despite the ongoing multi crore redevelopment of the railway station premises.(File Photo)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation filed by Sunaina, an advocate who appeared as petitioner in person, concerning the dangerously dilapidated condition of the Government Railway Police police station and staff residential quarters at Chandigarh railway station.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry heard the matter. The petition drew the court’s attention to the unsafe condition of the GRP police station, a British era structure that has not undergone substantial repair or modernisation despite the ongoing multi crore redevelopment of the railway station premises.

Also Read | ’10 minutes for pick-up and drop’: People face parking pangs at railway station

The petitioner placed on record photographs, news reports and written complaints highlighting leaking roofs, cracked and collapsing walls, exposed electrical wiring, unsecured malkhana windows, lack of a boundary wall leading to the escape of accused persons, and the absence of potable water and basic sanitation facilities.

During the hearing, Satya Pal Jain, additional solicitor general of India, appearing for the Union of India and the ministry of railways, assured the court that the railway authorities would undertake repair, renovation and upgradation of the GRP police station building, which is presently in an unsafe condition.

Recording this assurance, the bench disposed of the PIL and granted two months to the concerned authorities to carry out the required work. The court also gave liberty to the petitioner to approach it again if effective steps are not taken within the stipulated period.

The court clarified that in the absence of meaningful action within two months, the petitioner would be free to file an appropriate petition informing the court that the assurance had not been complied with and that no repair or renovation work had been undertaken.

The petition raised issues of public safety, dignity of police personnel and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that denial of basic infrastructure to law enforcement agencies stationed at major public transport hubs adversely affects public interest and the rule of law.