Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana Bar Association on Thursday deferred “till further notice” its referendum on relocating the court from the existing iconic heritage complex to a locality in Chandigarh’s periphery.
Association secretary Gagandeep Jammu said in a notice, the referendum has been postponed since there was a proposal to de-reserve a part of the forest land around the existing HC complex which is expected to solve the acute problem of space shortage.
On 25 August, the bar association had asked advocates practicing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to decide if they wanted the high court to be shifted to a much larger complex at Sarangpur, a locality in Chandigarh’s periphery, or continue to work from the existing complex.
The association had added the decision would be taken through a casting of votes, the date and mode of which would be notified subsequently.
The bar association’s move stemmed from the proceedings of a 2023 Public Interest Litigation filed by high court employee Vinod Dhatterwal seeking the implementation of a long-pending “holistic development plan” of the court.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu has presided over multiple hearings of the case, asking the Chandigarh administration to find a solution to the problem of acute congestion and shortage of space in the high court.
But, the de-notification of the forest land around the HC complex, could take a long time, if it at all happens.
The bar’s Thursday notice said Satya Pal Jain, the additional solicitor general of India, had agreed to intervene in the matter of denotification of forest land and an “intimation of the Government’s decision is awaited”.
When contacted, Satya Pal Jain told ThePrint that he had mooted the idea of the Chandigarh administration denotifying the forest land around the high court to make additional space and reduce congestion. “Right now, we are exploring if the idea can be turned into a possibility. But a concrete and final proposal to be sent to the Government of India has to come from the Chandigarh administration,” said Jain.
Advocate Amit Jhanji, the senior standing counsel for the Chandigarh administration, told ThePrint currently there was no concrete move from the administration’s side to denotify the forest land around the court premises. “The idea was floated by Mr Jain while the arguments were going on in the court,” said Jhanji.
Also Read: How Punjab & Haryana HC backed Panchkula man’s quest for truth about his parentage
World heritage
The existing complex of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is located in the iconic Capitol Complex, the power centre of Chandigarh city designed by celebrated French-Swiss architect Le Corbusier.
Apart from the high court, the Capitol Complex houses the Vidhan Sabha and the civil secretariat. Standing in the backdrop of the Shivalik Hills, all three buildings were constructed in the 1950s.
A series of monuments—the Open Hand, Geometric Hill, Tower of Shadows and Martyrs’ Memorial (incomplete though)—were built in the Capitol Complex later.
No other construction was allowed around the complex to maintain the sanctity of Corbusier’s design. Over the years, a wooded area surrounding the complex was declared a reserved forest.
In 2016, the Capitol Complex was declared a “transnational World Heritage” property by UNESCO. Any change in the area can only be brought about by the Chandigarh administration with the prior approval of UNESCO.
Over the years, the high court, catering to the two states and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, expanded substantially. It currently houses 69 court rooms, an administrative complex, lawyers’ chambers, registrar’s office, a library, a museum, advocate generals’ offices, besides underground and overground parkings.
In its notice announcing the referendum, the bar association said that currently there are 15,000 bar members and the number would rise to about 25,000 in another 10 years. “There is already no space for decent sitting or parking of vehicles,” said the notice.
The notice added that the bar members have been asking for additional space for sitting and parking their vehicles for several years now. Besides, the high court also needed additional space for its administrative branches and records.
Congestion & space shortage
During the hearing of the PIL on August 13, Justice Nagu asked the Chandigarh administration to adopt a “facilitative” rather than “adversarial stance”. “After all,” wrote Justice Nagu, “the requirement/need/constraints of the High Court are the requirement/need/constraints of the Chandigarh Administration.”
“It goes without saying that the judiciary is the third pillar of democracy which can function effectively only when the other two pillars (Executive and Legislature) work in tandem with the judiciary. The edifice of democracy will crumble if any of the three pillars is weakened. We hope, expect and pray to God that U.T. Chandigarh Administration shall rise to the occasion to ameliorate the genuine grievance of the High Court of acute shortage of space”.
“It is pertinent to point out that against a sanctioned strength of 85, the High Court has only 69 operational court-rooms. This dissuades the High Court from working full strength. We thus beseech the U.T. Chandigarh Administration to take a pragmatic view and allow the High Court to expand infrastructurally…” stated the division bench.
Three possible solutions
Highly placed sources in the Chandigarh administration told ThePrint that three options have been given to the high court in order to alleviate the problem of congestion and space shortage.
“One option is that we can construct an additional 2 lakh square feet of space within the high court which will include some additional court rooms, some lawyers chambers and a limited parking space. But this plan is subject to approval of the UNESCO World heritage committee as it involves a change in the existing structure located within the Capitol complex,” a senior officer of the Chandigarh administration told ThePrint.
“The second option,” added the officer, “is that the high court can shift a part of its functioning 15 acres of land in Sarangpur. These could be administrative offices, record rooms etc. This will free up a lot of space in the existing building which can be used for expansion.”
“The third option is that the entire high court is relocated on 48 acres of land in Sarangpur where they will have 30 to 35 lakh square feet of area, more than adequate parking space, almost 140 court rooms, apart from the advocate general’s offices,” said the officer.
On 20 August, the executive committee of the bar association resolved that it was willing to search for an alternative site for the high court.
During the resumed hearing of the PIL on August 22, the division bench headed by chief justice Nagu said the executive committee’s resolution be put before the general body of the bar association which was free to accept, reject or modify it.
However, instead of calling for a general body meeting of the bar, the association on 25 August issued a notice for the casting of votes over the matter. Since the bar association’s notice was worded in a manner that favoured the shifting of the court, it led to consternation and sharp division among bar members, many of whom were opposed to any move to shift out of the existing building. A section of the bar also insisted on a general house being called to discuss the matter.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)