Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals by the Chandigarh Administration against orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a public interest litigation. The High Court had issued writs of mandamus directing the Administration to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No.1 of the High Court building and to lay green pavers in a kutcha parking area to address acute parking shortage. The Administration challenged these orders on the ground that the High Court building is part of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site designated in 2016, and any structural changes require prior approval from the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, failing which the site risks losing its heritage status. The Supreme Court noted that the Administration had already approached the Foundation Le Corbusier and UNESCO for original drawings and had requested IIT Roorkee to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment. The Court held that while the need for infrastructure improvements was not disputed, the High Court should have balanced this with heritage conservation. The Supreme Court set aside the mandamus for the verandah and directed the Administration to seek UNESCO approval before proceeding. Regarding the green pavers, the Court upheld the High Court's direction as eco-friendly but subject to heritage clearance. The contempt proceedings against the Chief Engineer were also set aside. The Court emphasized that the Administration must act expeditiously to resolve the parking and shelter issues while preserving the World Heritage status.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Heritage Conservation - The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the UT Administration to construct a verandah in front of Court Room No.1 and lay green pavers in a kutcha parking area within the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site - The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have balanced the need for infrastructure with heritage conservation, and directed the Administration to seek UNESCO approval before proceeding - Held that the mandamus was premature as it did not account for the risk of losing World Heritage status (Paras 3-12). B) Heritage Law - UNESCO World Heritage Site - Conservation - The Chandigarh Capitol Complex, including the High Court building, is a UNESCO World Heritage Site designated in 2016 - Any proposed changes require prior communication and concurrence of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO - The Supreme Court directed the Administration to conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment through IIT Roorkee and forward the design to UNESCO for approval - Held that heritage status must be preserved while addressing infrastructure needs (Paras 4-11). C) Environmental Law - Sustainable Development - Green Pavers - The High Court directed laying of green pavers in a kutcha parking area to address acute parking shortage while preserving green cover - The Supreme Court upheld this direction as eco-friendly and reasonable, but subject to heritage clearance - Held that green pavers allow water percolation and are beneficial for sustainable development (Paras 3, 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing construction of a verandah and laying of green pavers in a UNESCO World Heritage Site without awaiting requisite permissions from the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part. It set aside the writ of mandamus dated 29th November 2024 directing construction of the verandah, and directed the Chandigarh Administration to expeditiously conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment through IIT Roorkee and forward the design to the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO for approval. The direction regarding green pavers was upheld but subject to heritage clearance. The contempt notices against the Chief Engineer were set aside. The Court directed the Administration to complete the process within a reasonable time and report back to the High Court.
Law Points
- Writ of Mandamus
- Heritage Conservation
- World Heritage Site
- Public Interest Litigation
- Contempt of Court
- Sustainable Development
- Green Pavers
- Parking Space
