Supreme Court upholds High Court directions for verandah and green pavers at Chandigarh High Court, keeps contempt in abeyance

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by the Chandigarh Administration challenging several orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had directed (i) construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 and (ii) laying of green paver blocks and planting of trees in an open parking area of the High Court campus. The appeals arose out of concerns that the proposed measures might affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Court affirmed the High Court’s orders and refused to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. It held that the additional verandah, designed in alignment with the existing projections before Court Rooms Nos. 2–9, did not amount to a “major restoration or new construction” that would imperil the World Heritage status, particularly because modern materials and removable or non-invasive techniques could achieve the protective cover without altering the main structure. The Court also upheld the direction to lay green paver blocks in the open parking area subject to landscaping and tree plantation to maximise shade and ecological benefit, and it kept contempt proceedings against the Chief Engineer of the UT Administration in abeyance for twelve weeks to enable compliance. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the decision of the High Court in directing construction of the verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs in front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines. At the same time, if so required, the administration would not be precluded from seeking ex-post facto approval for this minimal protective measure which is considered necessary without admitting any exception. The impugned orders dated 29th November, 2024 and 13th December, 2024 do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” The Court further noted that the administration could apply for any requisite approvals from Foundation Le Corbusier and UNESCO and that expert input (including from IIT Roorkee) could be used to ensure compatibility with heritage norms.

Background The dispute arose from a Public Interest Litigation filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking protective measures for litigants and lawyers who used the open area outside Court Room No. 1 and relief for acute parking shortages. The High Court issued a writ of mandamus on 29 November 2024 directing the UT Administration to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 similar to those before Court Rooms Nos. 2–9 and on 7 February 2025 directed laying of green paver blocks in the denuded “kutcha parking” area with plantation of trees. The Chandigarh Administration challenged those orders before this Court, contending that unilateral structural changes might risk loss of the Capitol Complex’s World Heritage status and that the open land formed part of the green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031. The administration produced archival correspondence from 1956 showing that an earlier proposal for an additional verandah had been declined by a then Chief Justice. The administration had also communicated with Foundation Le Corbusier and the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, and sought time to secure formal approvals; the Solicitor General informed the Court that no definitive reply from UNESCO/Foundation had been received yet. The High Court administration, while supporting the impugned directions, relied on expert inputs and operational guidelines for heritage sites, including paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines which stated that “Notice should be given as soon as possible ... and before making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse, so that the Committee may assist in seeking appropriate solutions to ensure that the Outstanding Universal Value of the property is fully preserved.” The Supreme Court accepted the High Court’s factual findings about exposure of Court Room No. 1 to the elements and acute parking demand, held that modern, non-invasive construction techniques could achieve the protective objective without endangering the site’s OUV, and upheld the green-paver direction with the caveat that landscaping experts be consulted and tree plantation be ensured. The contempt matter was kept in abeyance for twelve weeks to allow compliance.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 786 Case Title: Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India (for Chandigarh Administration) For the Respondent(s): Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Counsel (for High Court administration); Shri P.S. Patwalia, Senior Counsel (Amicus Curiae)