Summary
The Supreme Court upheld directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, issued in a PIL, requiring the Chandigarh Administration to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 of the High Court (a UNESCO World Heritage Site) in alignment with the existing verandahs before Court Rooms 2 to 9, and to lay green paver blocks with tree plantation in the kutcha parking area. Neither direction violates paragraph 172 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines or the green-belt character of the land; contempt proceedings were kept in abeyance for twelve weeks.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus for construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 of the heritage High Court building without awaiting permission from the Foundation Le Corbusier and the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.
- Whether such a verandah amounts to a 'major restoration or new construction' affecting the Outstanding Universal Value of the property under paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
- Whether the 1956 decision of the then Chief Justice declining a verandah before the main court room precluded the proposal being revisited.
- Whether the High Court could direct laying of green paver blocks and tree plantation in the kutcha parking area forming part of the green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 172, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO)The paragraph invites States Parties to notify the Committee of major restorations or new constructions that may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a protected property, before taking decisions that would be difficult to reverse. A verandah before Court Room No. 1 matching the existing verandahs is neither a major restoration nor a new construction within the main structure, can be built without altering the main structure and may even be collapsible or removable; it therefore does not offend the guideline. (¶¶ 27, 28, 34, 36, 39)
Held
- The record showed that an additional verandah in front of the main court room, similar to those before the smaller court rooms, was mooted by the Capitol Project authorities as far back as 1956 and was dropped only because the then Chief Justice turned it down on his personal perception without collective discussion; had he consented, it would have been built long ago. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
- The Administration's sole concern was loss of World Heritage status, yet nothing on record showed that any communication had actually been made to the Foundation Le Corbusier or the World Heritage Committee seeking permission. The amicus's suggestion of a temporary tin or metal shed was rejected as it would destroy the aesthetic value of the building. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33)
- Constructing a verandah before Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the pre-existing verandahs before Court Rooms 2 to 9 (projections supported by steel pipes) is not a major restoration or new construction within the main structure; modern materials permit an identical, even collapsible or removable, structure without any modification to the main building, with expert help from IIT Roorkee. The High Court administration, which is obliged to provide facilities to lawyers and litigants exposed to sun, wind and rain and to prevent rainwater seeping into the court room, is best placed to decide the precise requirements. The direction was justified and the Administration remains free to seek ex post facto approval. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
- Although the kutcha parking area is part of the green belt under the Chandigarh Master Plan, 2031, sustainable development requires a balanced view: environment and development are not sworn enemies, and legitimate development can be harmonised with environmental preservation (Rajeev Suri v. DDA). With 3000 to 4000 vehicles using an area designed for 600, vehicular movement on open land raises dust that pollutes the air and the heritage facade. Green paver blocks, which allow grass growth and water percolation, with trees planted at regular intervals between them, create both ground and vertical green cover; the direction was upheld. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Result
Appeals disposed of. The orders dated 29 November 2024 and 13 December 2024 (verandah) do not warrant interference under Article 136; the orders dated 7 and 21 February 2025 (green paver blocks) upheld, with the High Court administration to consult landscaping experts and ensure plantation of a suitable number of trees, monitored by the concerned Committee of the High Court. Contempt proceedings initiated on 13 December 2024 kept in abeyance for twelve weeks to enable compliance with the order of 29 November 2024. Pending applications disposed of.