New Delhi, May 28 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the Chandigarh administration to construct a verandah in front of its court room number one, saying it would not violate the UNESCO guidelines.
The Union territory administration had said it was concerned with imminent possibility of the loss of World Heritage status of Chandigarh Capitol Complex, which included the assembly, the high court and the secretariat designed by celebrated architect Le Corbusier, who planned the entire city of Chandigarh.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered its verdict on the appeal filed by the Chandigarh administration against the orders passed by the high court in the matter in 2024 and 2025.
“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,” the bench said.
It said if so required, the administration would not be precluded from seeking ‘ex-post facto’ approval for this minimal protective measure which was considered necessary without admitting any exception.
The bench said the high court orders regarding construction of ‘verandah’ does not warrant interference by the apex court.
It noted the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for Chandigarh and said that the Union territory administration does not have any quarrel in principle with the proposed construction of verandah in compliance with the high court’s November 29, 2024 order.
The bench noted Mehta had submitted that the only concern was that the building may lose its outstanding universal value and consequently the World Heritage status, if the verandah was constructed without procuring the requisite permissions from the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO.
While senior advocate P S Patwalia appeared in the matter as an amicus curiae, senior lawyer Nidhesh Gupta appeared for the high court administration.
The bench also dealt with the issue of laying of green paver blocks in open parking area in front of the high court building.
“It cannot be gainsaid that the requirement of a proper parking space for the lawyers and the litigants is imperative because the pre-existing facility in the high court has fallen woefully short,” it said.
It said the parking space was meant to cater to 600 four-wheelers but reportedly, 3,000 to 4,000 four-wheelers access the high court campus on any given working day and the number was bound to rise with the passage of time.
“Undeniably, when the vehicular movement takes place on the open land, dust would be blown up thereby polluting the atmosphere and causing the risk of allergies, etc,” it said.
“In addition, thereto, the particles which blow up may precipitate on the high court building thereby creating a layer of dust and pollutants on its exterior and disrupting its aesthetic facade,” the bench said.
The apex court upheld the high court’s orders passed in 2025 placing green paver blocks in the open area being used for parking.
It said while proceeding with the work to place green paver blocks, the high court administration may consult landscaping experts and ensure plantation of suitable number of trees at appropriate intervals so as to facilitate parking of maximum number of vehicles and in addition, increasing the green cover in the area.
The bench said the contempt proceedings initiated by the high court in the matter concerning construction of verandah shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 12 weeks so as to enable the Chandigarh administration to comply with the order.
The bench was told that the Chandigarh Capitol Complex was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2016 as a part of the trans-border serial nomination for the architectural works of Corbusier.
Mehta had argued that as per the applicable guidelines, any proposed changes in the World Heritage Site were to be communicated to the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, in advance and their concurrence was to be sought, failing which, there was a risk of the site losing its World Heritage status.
The bench noted construction of the verandah in front of court room number one was being mooted by concerned authority in 1956 and had the then chief justice consented, the construction would have happened long back.
“…We find that none of the documents placed on record by the appellant (Chandigarh administration) give any indication to the effect that till date any communication has actually been made either with the Foundation Le Corbusier, Paris or the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, seeking permission to raise construction of the ‘verandah’ in front of the main court room i.e., court room no. 1,” it noted.
The bench said modern architectural techniques have progressed by leaps and bounds and new construction materials and techniques were available which could be employed to construct the verandah exactly identical to the one existing in front of court room numbers two to nine without disturbing the aesthetic value of the main structure.
It said the additional verandah could even be in the form of a collapsible or removable structure, if so required. PTI ABA ZMN ZMN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.