Chandigarh heritage concerns can't override development: SC backs verandah, green parking in HC
In a landmark ruling delivered at 7:04 pm on Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's orders directing the Chandigarh administration to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 and lay green paver blocks in the kutcha parking area near the High Court building.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the UT's appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 162–163 and 9042–9043 of 2025), underscoring the importance of sustainable development and the balance between heritage preservation and public convenience.
The court held that the verandah, aligned with existing ones in front of Court Rooms Nos. 2 to 9, 'is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines.' It also directed the High Court administration to proceed with laying green paver blocks in the parking area and to ensure tree plantation to enhance green cover.
The bench granted the Chandigarh administration 12 weeks to comply with the verandah directive and stayed contempt proceedings against UT Chief Engineer C.B. Ojha.
The dispute stems from a public interest litigation (CWP No. 9 of 2023) in which the High Court issued a series of orders starting November 29, 2024. It directed the UT administration to build a verandah to shelter litigants and lawyers from extreme weather. The order was reiterated on December 13, 2024, after no action was taken.
On February 7, 2025, the High Court ordered green paver blocks in the kutcha parking area to address severe space constraints. The court noted that the parking lot currently handles 3,000–4,000 vehicles daily, while the underground facility can accommodate only 600.
The Chandigarh administration, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, challenged these directives citing concerns about the potential impact on the Capitol Complex's UNESCO World Heritage status. He argued that even a seemingly minor modification, such as a verandah, required clearance under Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Committee.
The Supreme Court found the administration's concerns unpersuasive and backed the High Court's reasoning. 'We are satisfied with the submission of Shri Gupta, appearing for the High Court administration, that even as per Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, the verandah… would not violate the guidelines, because neither can it be said to be a major restoration nor a new construction within the main structure,' the court said.
It added that the High Court is 'best placed to take a suitable decision' on preserving the building while ensuring functional utility.
On the parking issue, the bench endorsed the High Court's 'proactive approach,' calling the green paver solution 'reasonable' and 'a step towards sustained development.'
Quoting from its 2021 judgment in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, the court said, 'Environment and development are not sworn enemies… as long as legitimate development activity can be carried on in harmony with environmental protection, courts should strive to uphold that harmony.'
The court also emphasized the inadequacy of existing parking, calling the need for a proper facility 'imperative.'
The bench validated the High Court's decision to revisit the 1956 rejection of a similar verandah proposal. It quoted an official communication acknowledging that the construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 had been under consideration at the time but did not proceed due to lack of consent from the then Chief Justice.
'The High Court administration felt a dire need to provide a verandah for the stakeholders,' the bench noted. It also cited instances of rainwater seepage into Court Room No. 1 causing damage and disruption.
Senior counsel Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for the High Court, argued that the verandah was consistent with existing structures and that green pavers would help mitigate environmental issues. The court accepted the submission and directed the High Court administration to consult landscaping experts to ensure adequate tree plantation along the paver-lined area.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
SC quashes trial court order in ED's Rathi Steel case over BNSS lapse
The Supreme Court has set aside the cognisance of a prosecution complaint (equivalent to a chargesheet) taken by a lower court in a money laundering trial involving M/s Rathi Steel and its top executive, who were booked by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a coal allocation case . A division bench comprising Justices AS Oka (who retired last month) and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the cognisance order dated November 20, 2024, solely on the ground of "non-compliance" with new provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions require trial courts to issue a show-cause notice to an accused before summoning them to face trial. Clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ED's complaint, the bench directed executive Kushal Kumar Agarwal to appear before the trial court on July 14, "so that he can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS." The order also stated, "We make it clear that no further notice shall be issued by the Special (trial) Court to the appellant (Agarwal)." Section 223 of the BNSS applies specifically to "complaints" and not to cases investigated by the police or the CBI. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing the petitioners, argued that under Section 223, accused persons are entitled to be heard before being summoned by the trial court. He emphasized that this section stipulates that "no cognisance of an offence shall be taken by the magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard." In response, ED's counsel argued that under the new BNSS provision, the hearing granted to the accused is limited to determining whether a case is made out to proceed based solely on the complaint and its accompanying documents. The ED further contended that cognisance is taken of the offence-not the offender. Thus, once cognisance is taken, it need not be taken again when supplementary or further complaints are filed. "Therefore, at that stage, there will be no occasion to give the accused the opportunity to be heard," the ED's counsel argued. Addressing these arguments, the Supreme Court stated in its order that the ED's submissions "need not be considered, as the same do not arise in this appeal at this stage." However, it added, "We make it clear that the said contentions are expressly kept open and can be raised before the Special Court."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
NEET-PG 2025 be conducted in one shift, orders SC; says two shifts create arbitrariness, ET Education
Advt Advt New Delhi, In a significant order, the Supreme Court on Friday issued directions that the post-graduate medical entrance exam scheduled on June 15 be conducted in a single shift, saying holding it in two shifts "creates arbitrariness".A bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath directed the authorities to make arrangements for holding NEET-PG 2025 exam in one shift and to ensure that complete transparency is maintained and secured centres are identified."Any two question papers can never be said to be having an identical level of difficulty or ease," said the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and N V said normalisation may be applied in exceptional cases but not in a routine manner year after bench passed the order on pleas challenging a notification on holding the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Post Graduate (NEET-PG) 2025 examination in two top court said the total number of candidates who have applied for the examination is 2,42,678 and the test is held all over the country and not in one city."We are not ready to accept that in the entire country and considering the technological advancement in the country, the examining body could not find enough centres to hold the examination in one shift," the bench said."Holding examinations in two shifts creates arbitrariness and also does not keep all the candidates, who take the examination, at the same level," it said the examination is scheduled for June 15 and there was still more than two weeks for the examining body to identify further centres to hold it in one shift."We accordingly direct the respondents to make further arrangements for holding the examination in one shift and also ensure that complete transparency is maintained and secured centres are identified," the bench of the pleas was filed through advocate Sukriti Bhatnagar. Several lawyers, including advocate Tanvi Dubey, appeared in the counsel appearing for the respondents, including the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS), said even if efforts were made to identify more centres, it might need more time which might result into delay in holding the NBEMS is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting postgraduate and postdoctoral examinations in approved specialities leading to the award of Diplomate of National Board and Doctorate of National Board and Fellow of National respondents said consequently, the counselling might also be delayed which would not be in line with the timeline fixed by the apex court."This argument is also not accepted as there is still sufficient time for the examining body to identify sufficient number of centres for holding the examination in one shift," the bench top court observed it would be open for the respondents to apply for extension of time, if they find they were not able to identify required number of the counsel for the respondents repeatedly said the process of identifying centres might not be completed by June 15, the bench said they could seek extension of time and the court would consider that."It is for you to identify and pay for it. If you don't want to spend money, it is a different thing," the bench counsel appearing for the respondents said it was not a question of money."Now you burn little midnight oil and try to find the centres," the bench said."We have given you liberty to seek extension," the bench said, adding, "You have already made up your mind that you are not going to be able to do it without even trying. Try at least".It noted the other issued raised in the plea was regarding disclosure of question papers and answer keys on NBEMS's website after the declaration of said this issue would be considered after the examinations are held and posted the matter for hearing on July apex court noted that counsel for the respondents have opposed the plea to conduct NEET-PG examination in one shift on two said as per respondents, the number of candidates to appear in the exam was too large and it was difficult for the examining body to find secured centres to hold the test in one said the second ground was that if examinations were held in one shift, unscrupulous elements might get involved and there could be the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners said NEET-PG exam was a rank-based test and even one marks would make a huge difference in whether the candidate would get the preferred stream."You tell us why do you hold examination in two shifts?," the bench asked the counsel appearing for the counsel said these examinations were held online and there were limited safe centres having required the counsel appearing for one of the respondents said the schedule fixed by the apex court would be disturbed as holding the examination in one shift within 15 days would be difficult, the bench said, "Don't give this kind of a threat that the whole year will go and this will happen and that will happen".The lawyer appearing for another respondent said they have identified about 445 centres for multi shift examination and if it was to be conducted in one shift, they will have to identify about 900 odd centres. PTI
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Central Empowered Committee to inspect Mohali villages over forest, wildlife violations
Acting on a complaint regarding violation of forest and wildlife laws in villages, such as Karoran, Nada, Masol, and adjoining areas in Mohali district, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), constituted by the Supreme Court, is scheduled to visit the region on Monday at 9 am. The CEC will assess the extent of damage caused to forest land, wildlife and the local environment. It will also evaluate the timely action taken by government departments, and based on its findings, will recommend appropriate measures. The said villages under scrutiny fall within areas governed by the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900. These areas are also protected under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Supreme Court's orders. Even during the process of delisting certain areas from protected status, the court had explicitly banned any commercial activity without prior approval from the Government of India. Despite these restrictions, large-scale violations—particularly illegal hill-cutting—have allegedly continued unabated for several years. These activities have led to the degradation of ecologically sensitive and biodiversity-rich areas in the Shivalik Hills. Environmentalists and local residents have accused the forest department, district administration and urban agencies like Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), along with panchayati raj institutions, of failing to prevent these encroachments, raising concerns over the alleged influence of the land mafia in the region. The Shivalik forests are known for their ecological significance, and are home to many endangered plant and animal species, several of which are listed as threatened under the (International Union for Conservation of Nature) IUCN Red List. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted by the Supreme Court of India in 2002 (and reconstituted in 2008) to assist in matters related to forest, wildlife conservation and flag cases of official non-compliance with its orders related to conservation. It reports to the Union environment ministry. The committee came into existence after a landmark Supreme Court judgment, dated December 12, 1996, in a 1995 case. The apex court ruled that the term 'forest' should be interpreted in its dictionary sense, regardless of land ownership. This means any land that is forest in character on the ground must be treated as such and cannot be used for non-forest activities without prior approval from the Government of India, in accordance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and other applicable laws.
