In a significant ruling delivered on Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directives to the Chandigarh administration to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 and to lay green paver blocks in the kutcha parking area near the High Court building.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the Union Territory’s appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 162–163 and 9042–9043 of 2025). The Court emphasized the importance of sustainable development and maintaining a balance between heritage conservation and public convenience.
The apex court held that the proposed verandah, which would align with the existing ones in front of Court Rooms Nos. 2 to 9, is fully justified and does not contravene UNESCO heritage guidelines. It further directed the High Court administration to proceed with laying green paver blocks in the nearby parking area and ensure tree plantation to enhance greenery.
The bench granted the Chandigarh administration 12 weeks to comply with the verandah directive and put a stay on contempt proceedings initiated against UT Chief Engineer C.B. Ojha.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a public interest litigation (CWP No. 9 of 2023) filed before the High Court. Beginning November 29, 2024, the High Court had issued several directions instructing the UT administration to construct a verandah to protect litigants and lawyers from harsh weather conditions. These directions were reiterated on December 13, 2024, due to lack of compliance.
On February 7, 2025, the High Court further directed the administration to install green paver blocks in the unpaved parking area to address the issue of limited parking. The court observed that the lot handles 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles daily, while the underground parking structure accommodates only 600.
Challenge and Supreme Court's Findings
Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Chandigarh administration opposed the High Court’s directives, arguing that even minor changes like a verandah could affect the Capitol Complex’s UNESCO World Heritage status and would require clearance under Paragraph 172 of the World Heritage Committee’s Operational Guidelines.
The Supreme Court rejected these objections, agreeing with submissions made by Shri Gupta, representing the High Court administration. The Court concluded that the verandah neither qualifies as a major restoration nor as new construction within the main structure and hence does not violate UNESCO norms.
The bench noted that the High Court is in the best position to decide on measures that maintain the functionality of the court complex while respecting its heritage status.
Regarding parking, the Supreme Court lauded the High Court’s proactive approach, describing the green paver solution as both practical and environmentally sustainable.
Citing its 2021 ruling in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, the Court reiterated that environment and development must be balanced, and legitimate development should proceed in harmony with ecological concerns.
The Court also stressed the urgency of establishing a proper parking facility given the inadequacy of current arrangements.
Historical Context
The Court backed the High Court’s move to revisit a 1956 proposal to build a verandah that had been shelved due to lack of approval from the then Chief Justice. An official communication from that time acknowledged that the idea had been considered.
Highlighting the necessity of the structure, the bench noted recurring issues like rainwater seepage in Court Room No. 1, which has led to damage and disruption. The High Court administration, therefore, saw the verandah as a critical need for the benefit of all stakeholders.
