No breach of UNESCO Heritage norms: SC
New Delhi, May 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's orders directing the construction of a verandah outside Courtroom No 1 and the eco-friendly redevelopment of the kutcha parking area within the High Court premises.
The apex court rejected objections raised by the Chandigarh administration, ruling that the proposed works do not violate UNESCO guidelines applicable to heritage sites.
A bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, observed that the verandah's design, aligned with those outside Courtrooms 2 to 9, is consistent with the architectural character of the High Court building and does not compromise its World Heritage Site status.
'We find that the High Court's directive for verandah construction is appropriate and in conformity with the existing design elements. It does not breach UNESCO heritage norms,' the Supreme Court held.
The bench added that the Chandigarh administration may still seek ex post facto approval from concerned heritage authorities as a precautionary step.
The Court also endorsed the High Court's decisions dated February 7 and 21, 2025, which directed the placement of green paver blocks and tree plantations in the kutcha parking area.
The goal, the Court said, is to maximize vehicle capacity, create shaded parking, and boost the site's green cover.
To ensure effective execution, the Court directed the High Court administration to consult landscaping experts and monitor the process through a designated committee.
In a partial reprieve to the UT Administration, the Supreme Court stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court on December 13, 2024, for 12 weeks. The move aims to give the administration sufficient time to comply with the High Court's order dated November 29, 2024.
The dispute originated from a 2023 PIL (public interest litigation), filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Secretary, seeking basic infrastructural upgrades to the court complex. In November 2024, the High Court directed the UT administration to begin constructing the verandah within two weeks, citing litigant inconvenience due to the Chief Justice's Court being in a separate block prone to rain-related disruptions.
The Chandigarh administration resisted compliance, pointing to the Capitol Complex's status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site designed by architect Le Corbusier. It claimed the construction required international heritage approvals and stated it had reached out to the Archaeological Survey of India and the Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee.
The Committee granted in-principle clearance but suggested consultation with Fondation Le Corbusier in Paris.
The High Court, however, found the administration's delay unjustified and issued a writ of mandamus on November 29, 2024, mandating immediate construction. When the administration failed to act, the Court initiated contempt proceedings and impleaded Chief Engineer C B Ojha.
Challenging these orders, the Chandigarh administration approached the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's directions on January 10, 2025.
Meanwhile, due to increasing vehicular congestion, the High Court on February 7, 2025, ordered the development of the open parking area using green pavers and the plantation of 100–200 trees. The administration's plea to recall this order was dismissed on February 21, with the High Court underscoring the need for sustainable development and resolution of the parking crisis.
With Tuesday's ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld all four High Court orders, paving the way for infrastructural improvements that are both functional and compliant with global heritage preservation norms.
UNI SNG SS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
29 minutes ago
- United News of India
SC refuses more time to Vinay Kulkarni in bail cancellation case, hearing tomorrow
New Delhi, June 5 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to grant a week to Karnataka MLA and former Minister Vinay Kulkarni to place certain documents on record in response to the state government's plea seeking cancellation of his bail in the murder case of BJP worker Yogesh Gowda. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed Kulkarni's counsels only one day to submit the documents, stating, 'It shall be open for the respondents to place on record any document either during the course of the day or hand over the same during the course of the hearing tomorrow.' Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Kulkarni, had sought a week, citing the absence of certain documents on record that were before the trial court and arguing that the matter concerns his client's Article 21 rights (Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty). He also referred to a related case involving other co-accused where the High Court has reserved orders on bail cancellation. 'We have not got any time in this. The other accused, whose cancellation is sought, the matter is reserved by the High Court... let that order also come. I'm not saying give me 4-6 weeks. Give me whatever reasonable time... if I don't get even a day to file a document... have it next week,' he urged. Opposing the request, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the State of Karnataka, pointed to Kulkarni's previous conduct to argue against any further accommodation. Rejecting the extension plea, Justice Karol remarked, 'We are going to be very, very unreasonable and harsh on you. We are adjourning the matter by one day.' The Court accordingly listed the matter for hearing tomorrow. During the proceedings, the bench also took exception to the conduct of a counsel appearing for Kulkarni, who had sought accommodation the previous day, claiming he was on vacation and did not have his black coat, despite appearing before the Court wearing one. On being questioned, the counsel clarified that he had borrowed the coat. 'You put a senior counsel to great embarrassment yesterday... and you logged in thrice... it only speaks volumes about the counsel, forget about the clients... never do that in future. Don't embarrass anyone who we know are noble people in the profession,' Justice Karol stated. The Karnataka government has sought cancellation of Kulkarni's bail, citing allegations of witness tampering. Kulkarni was arrested in 2020 in connection with the murder of BJP leader Yogesh Gowda and was granted bail in 2021. UNI SNG SSP
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Will Trump get to pick US Supreme Court justices in his second term?
Legal experts suggest that Donald Trump may have the opportunity to appoint additional Supreme Court justices during a potential second term, potentially reshaping the court's direction for decades. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts may face pressure to retire, allowing Trump to install younger, like-minded individuals. Experts have said Trump might appoint loyalist justice. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Can Trump overhaul judiciary? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Can Trump pick judges? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Trump may seek loyalty over ideology During his first term in office, President Donald Trump appointed 226 federal court judges, including three US Supreme Court justices. Trump successfully installed judges who promoted his political agenda, including overturning the landmark ruling from 1973 that declared the Constitution guaranteed the right to abortion, Roe v. something unusual appears to be unfolding in his second term. Rather than reinforcing Trump-era policies, federal judges — even those appointed by Trump himself — are now halting key parts of the president's second-term initiatives. So, a question that keeps popping up on everyone's mind is that- Will Donald Trump appoint Supreme Court judges in the US?Trump may have the opportunity to appoint new Supreme Court justices during his second term in office, legal experts told Newsweek. During his first term in office, Trump appointed three justices to the US Supreme Court, thus significantly influencing the judiciary system. Trump may have another chance to nominate a justice in the coming years- —an appointment that could shape the Court's direction for decades. Such a move would likely have profound effects on public policy, particularly in areas like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and executive Justices Clarence Thomas (76), Samuel Alito (75), and Chief Justice John Roberts (70) are already facing calls from some on the right to consider retirement in the coming years. With Republicans currently holding control of the presidency and a 53-seat majority in the Senate, they are in a strong position to confirm new Supreme Court justices without Democratic argue that Republicans should take a lesson from Democrats, who have previously faced setbacks when their justices chose not to retire during favorable political Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that while it's impossible to predict exactly when a justice might step down, Justices Alito and Thomas are the most likely candidates for retirement—primarily to allow a like-minded successor to be appointed. However, he noted that this isn't a certainty, as both justices are now part of the majority after spending years as dissenting voices on the Court, a position they deeply from the right may not be convincing to the justices, he said."Judges and especially Justices are very independent, and I don't think they will be too influenced by the pressure campaign," he said. "It's ultimately a very personal decision and the Ginsburg example is important but she was older and faced more health issues than the current justices."None of the current justices on the court have publicly said they plan to retire anytime federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek Thomas could wait until after the 2026 midterms to avoid giving Democrats a motivating issue ahead of the elections."However, if that happens, President Trump will pick a very young and conservative nominee because in his mind, he got burned with Justice Barrett," he said. "And he wants to put his further imprint on the tenor of the High Court."Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek: "It's likely Trump appoints at least one Supreme Court Justice, and maybe two. The odds increase over his four-year term, especially with Justices Thomas and Alito being in their mid-70s.""Trump's Cabinet and officer appointees during his second term have been largely loyalists without the experience or independent streaks that frustrated him during his first term. His Supreme Court appointment(s) will likely reflect those same values, especially given the importance of the judiciary in standing in the way of his executive orders."Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University, told Newsweek, "It's uncertain whether Trump will have another Supreme Court vacancy. But there's a good chance conservatives will begin urging Roberts, Thomas, and Alito to retire after this term so Trump could install younger, like-minded justices.'Legal analysts believe Trump may prioritize personal loyalty over ideological alignment when choosing future Supreme Court McQuade, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek that frustration with decisions made by Justices Barrett and Roberts may drive Trump to look for candidates who are not only conservative but personally loyal to him."Trump could seek justices who won't break from him on major rulings," McQuade said. "That could have a major impact on upcoming cases dealing with birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare, and the limits of executive power."Justice Amy Coney Barrett has occasionally sided against Trump's positions, including a ruling against deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Her independent stance has drawn criticism from Trump-aligned analyst Urman agreed that loyalty may guide Trump's future selections, noting that he 'appears to value loyalty above all else in his nominees.' Any new appointments, Urman added, would likely align more closely with the judicial philosophies of Justices Thomas or Alito than Barrett.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Hong Kong Appoints New Zealand Judge To Top Court
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. A New Zealand judge has been appointed to Hong Kong's top court amid overseas jurist exodus. William Young, 73, joins five other overseas non-permanent justices from the UK and Australia. Hong Kong invites overseas judges to its Court of Final Appeal to uphold common law jurisdiction. Hong Kong: A New Zealand judge has been appointed as a justice of Hong Kong's top court, after a years-long exodus of overseas jurists following Beijing's imposition of a sweeping security law on the finance hub. Hong Kong's lawmakers on Wednesday approved the appointment of William Young, 73, to join five other overseas non-permanent justices from the UK and Australia. Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction separate from mainland China and invites overseas judges to hear cases at its Court of Final Appeal. Their presence has been seen as a bellwether for the rule of law since the former British colony was handed back to China in 1997. Beijing passed a national security law on Hong Kong in 2020, following huge and often violent pro-democracy protests in the Chinese city the year before. Since then, several overseas judges have quit the Court of Final Appeal without finishing their terms, while others have not renewed their appointments. The lineup of overseas judges has gone from 15 at its peak down to five, not including Mr Young. The newly appointed justice, who retired from his role as a New Zealand Supreme Court judge in April 2022, is expected to start in Hong Kong this month. Hong Kong leader John Lee accepted a recommendation to appoint Mr Young in May and praised him as "a judge of eminent standing and reputation". Cases at the top court in Hong Kong are typically heard by a panel of four local judges and a fifth ad hoc member, who may be a foreign judge. In January, Hong Kong's chief justice said recruiting suitable overseas judges "may be less straightforward than it once was", given geopolitical headwinds. The government has defended the security law as necessary to restore order after the 2019 protests and said the city remains a well-respected legal hub.
