Bar Assn rejects proposal to shift HC to new premises

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association’s General Body today shut the door on shifting the High Court to a new site, opting to retain the institution within its current premises instead. The decision was taken through a show of hands, amidst warnings from the court about severe space constraints that could make relocation unavoidable.

A Bench of the HC had earlier asked Bar president Sartej Singh Narula to place before the court the Bar’s opinion on whether it was willing to shift. The Judges had clarified that they were open to relocation, provided the General Body of the Bar Association agreed.

“Executive Committee has passed a resolution that they are ready and willing to search for an alternative site for the High Court. Let the resolution of the Executive Committee be placed before the General Body, which, if passed, would definitely be accepted by the Court, not otherwise,” the Bench headed by Chief Justice Nagu had asserted.

The matter, as such, was placed before the General Body this afternoon, where the relocation proposals and other issues were discussed. Initially, formal voting was contemplated, but the General Body chose to decide through a show of hands.

The development is significant as the court had previously acknowledged the acute shortage of space in its existing complex, while discussing the proposals to move the High Court to Sarangpur or the IT Park. But the rejection by the Bar today virtually closed the door on any immediate relocation.

“We are forced to think about an alternative site for the High Court…. Such a good building you have. It’s a unique building. I have not seen such a building in the entire country. And yet you are compelling people to leave this building by your adamancy,” the Bench had earlier asserted, while making clear its stand.

Currently, the High Court functions with 69 courtrooms against a sanctioned strength of 85 judges. The Bench, during the course of hearing, was informed that the number of functional courtrooms could rise to 89 if certain staff occupying existing courtrooms were relocated.

The Bench is now virtually left with two proposals: converting adjoining forest land into non-forest area to allow expansion of the current premises, and constructing a new judicial complex opposite the High Court Bar Room.

The UT Administration has already approved the plan to construct 16 additional courtrooms across two floors, along with two basement levels for parking, which would provide nearly two lakh square feet of additional space.

On the issue of forest land conversion, UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji has all along been maintaining that de-reservation could not be considered. He pointed out that the proposed land was an eco-fragile patch of reserve forest notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, forming part of the Sukhna Lake/wetland catchment. Also, it falls within the eco-sensitive zone of the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary as per the Environment (Protection) Act notification of January 10, 2017.

Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain, on the other hand, has been stating that the real obstacle is not legality but a lack of willpower. “People who have to do it lack willpower,” he remarked during a hearing, highlighting bureaucratic inertia as the key challenge in expanding the High Court’s infrastructure.

Decisions taken at the meeting

The General House of the Bar Association unanimously decided not to shift the High Court to Sarangpur or any other alternative site.

The Bar Association will pursue de-reservation of adjoining forestland to enable the expansion of the High Court at its current location.

The continuation of the High Court at its present site is considered in the best interest of the legal fraternity, litigants and justice administration.

Copies of the resolution are to be forwarded to the Chief Justice and judges of the High Court, Union Law Minister, Chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana, and the UT Administrator for consideration and necessary action.