Supreme Court allows construction at P&H High Court, says will not affect UNESCO heritage status

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directions to construct a verandah in front of courtroom No. 1 of the High Court and to lay green paver blocks in the kutcha parking area [Chandigarh Administration vs. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh & Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the apex court rejected the Chandigarh Administration’s contention that these steps could threaten the UNESCO World Heritage status of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex of which the High Court building is a part.The Supreme Court said the proposed verandah was a protective measure identical to existing verandahs in front of courtrooms 2 to 9 and that it did not amount to a major structural change. It held that the construction was “absolutely justified” and did not warrant any interference. .The Court was hearing appeals filed by the Chandigarh Administration against a series of directions passed by the High Court between November 2024 and February 2025. These included a direction compelling the Chandigarh Administration to construct the verandah, an order initiating contempt proceedings against the Chief Engineer for non-compliance, and directions to lay green pavers in the kutcha parking area to address a longstanding space crunch..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, submitted that the verandah proposal risked the loss of the World Heritage status granted to the Capitol Complex, which includes the High Court, Assembly and Secretariat buildings designed by Le Corbusier. He argued that under the applicable UNESCO guidelines, any change likely to affect the “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV) of the site required prior communication to the World Heritage Committee and their concurrence.He added that the Administration had reached out to the Foundation Le Corbusier in Paris to obtain the original drawings and had also sought a Heritage Impact Assessment from IIT Roorkee. Until this process is complete, he urged that construction be deferred to avoid any permanent change..Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing as Amicus Curiae, supported Mehta’s submissions. Referring to a 1956 letter placed on record, he submitted that even at the time of the Capitol Project’s construction, a proposal for a verandah outside courtroom No. 1 was rejected by the then Chief Justice. Patwalia argued that such historical decisions, having once been taken, could not now be reviewed in writ jurisdiction..However, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for the High Court administration, pointed out that courtrooms 2 to 9 already had identical verandahs, and the proposed addition would align with them both in design and structure. He argued that the UNESCO guidelines only restricted major restorations or new constructions that would be difficult to reverse. The current plan is neither irreversible nor unprecedented, he argued..Gupta also cited the 1956 letter to argue that it was the Chief Justice’s personal opinion and not a collective decision that had halted the verandah project at that time. He emphasised that technological advances now allow for collapsible or removable verandahs using modern materials, without disturbing the aesthetic value of the main structure..The Supreme Court noted that no actual communication had yet been made with UNESCO or the Foundation Le Corbusier seeking permission for the verandah. It rejected the suggestion of erecting a temporary tin shed, holding that such a structure would destroy the building’s aesthetic.The bench agreed with the High Court's decision and said that the verandah will not violate any UNESCO guidelines. “The construction of the verandah in front of Courtroom No. 1 in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs in front of Courtrooms 2 to 9 is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines,” the court noted in its judgement. The Court added that if necessary, the Administration could seek ex-post facto approval for the verandah from the World Heritage Committee, noting that this “minimal protective measure” did not raise any exception under the Operational Guidelines..Turning to the parking issue, the bench held that the kutcha area outside the High Court had been used for years due to acute parking shortage, with up to 4,000 vehicles entering the premises daily. It rejected the Chandigarh Administration’s claim that the area was a protected green belt under the city’s Master Plan.The bench noted that green paver blocks were an eco-friendly solution that allowed for percolation of rainwater, minimised dust, and improved aesthetics without harming the ecological balance. It also directed the High Court to consult with landscaping experts and plant trees between the paver blocks to enhance vertical green cover..Supreme Court stays construction at Punjab & Haryana HC amid concerns it will affect UNESCO heritage status.Quoting from Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, the Court reiterated that sustainable development is the way forward. “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.”.Finally, the Court granted a 12-week window to the Chandigarh Administration to comply with the High Court’s order and stayed contempt of court proceedings in the interim.With this, the appeals were dismissed and the interim order of January halting the construction also stood vacated..The Chandigarh Administration was represented by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with advocates Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Krishna Kant Dubey, Varun Chugh and Shreekant Neelappa Terdal. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta and Varun Aryan Sharma along with Advocates Ashok Mathur, Japneet Kaur, Vriti Gujral, Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Bhardwaj, Aashish Chopra and Somiran Sharma. .[Read Judgment]