The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the construction of a verandah in front of Courtroom No. 1 and the installation of green paver blocks in the kutcha parking area of the High Court complex.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed objections raised by the Chandigarh Administration, which argued that such developments could endanger the Capitol Complex’s UNESCO World Heritage status. The Capitol Complex — designed by Le Corbusier — includes the High Court, the Assembly, and Secretariat buildings.

The apex court ruled that the proposed verandah was not a major structural change but a protective measure consistent with verandahs already existing in front of Courtrooms 2 to 9. The bench found the construction “absolutely justified” and refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision.

The judgment came in a batch of appeals challenging a series of High Court orders issued between November 2024 and February 2025, including directions for verandah construction, laying of green pavers, and initiation of contempt proceedings against the Chief Engineer for non-compliance.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, cautioned that the verandah might affect the Capitol Complex’s “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV) under UNESCO guidelines. He emphasized that any change impacting the site required prior communication and approval from the World Heritage Committee.

Mehta also informed the Court that the Administration had contacted the Foundation Le Corbusier in Paris for original architectural drawings and had engaged IIT Roorkee to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment. He urged the Court to defer construction until the assessment process concluded.

Supporting these submissions, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia referred to a 1956 letter indicating that a similar verandah proposal had previously been rejected by the then Chief Justice. He argued that such historical decisions should not be revisited through writ proceedings.

Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing the High Court administration, countered that the proposed verandah would merely replicate the design of existing ones and was neither irreversible nor inconsistent with UNESCO guidelines. He pointed out that the 1956 letter reflected the personal view of the then Chief Justice, not an institutional decision.

Gupta further argued that modern materials could allow for removable verandahs that respect the aesthetic and structural integrity of the heritage complex.

The Supreme Court noted that the Chandigarh Administration had not formally communicated with UNESCO or the Foundation Le Corbusier to seek permissions for the construction. Rejecting the suggestion of erecting a temporary tin shed, the Court held that it would compromise the building’s aesthetic value.

The Court observed:

“The construction of the verandah in front of Courtroom No. 1 in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs in front of Courtrooms 2 to 9 is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines.”

The Court added that the Administration could seek ex post facto approval from the World Heritage Committee if needed, calling the verandah a “minimal protective measure” that fell well within permissible limits under the Operational Guidelines.

On the issue of parking, the Court observed that the kutcha parking area had long been used due to a severe space crunch, with around 4,000 vehicles entering the premises daily. Rejecting the claim that the area was a protected green belt under the Master Plan, the bench noted that eco-friendly green paver blocks would improve aesthetics, reduce dust, and allow rainwater percolation — thus aligning with principles of sustainable development.

It also directed the High Court to consult landscaping experts and plant trees between the pavers to enhance vertical green cover.

Quoting from Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, the Court reiterated:

“As long as a legitimate development activity can be carried on in harmony with the idea of environmental protection and preservation including sustainable development, the Courts as well as expert bodies should make their best endeavour to ensure that harmony is upheld.”

The Supreme Court granted the Chandigarh Administration a 12-week window to comply with the High Court’s directions and stayed the contempt proceedings in the interim. The January interim order halting the construction was vacated, and the appeals were dismissed.

The Chandigarh Administration was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with advocates Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Krishna Kant Dubey, Varun Chugh, and Shreekant Neelappa Terdal.

The High Court and other respondents were represented by Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta and Varun Aryan Sharma, along with Advocates Ashok Mathur, Japneet Kaur, Vriti Gujral, Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Bhardwaj, Aashish Chopra, and Somiran Sharma.