Cities across world are hitting brakes on flyovers, HC told

Cities across the world are now applying brakes on flyover projects rather than building new ones, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was told today. Arguing before the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, advocate Tanu Bedi said flyovers were no longer seen as a solution to urban traffic and were actually being pulled down in several cities across the world.

Assisting the Bench in the matter, Bedi said the petition before the High Court was not adversarial in nature, but involving the city of Chandigarh. “What is good for Chandigarh, is good for everyone,” she submitted, while insisting on time for detailed arguments.

UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji responded by questioning the locus standi of the petitioners, claiming that none of them was an expert in this field. He added that 72 objections from a public hearing were received and seven shortlisted for detailed discussion.

In a related matter, Chief Justice Nagu asserted that the High Court’s “Holistic Development Plan” would take a few years — possibly up to five — to materialise. Until then, the Administration should allow temporary, dismantlable structures to meet immediate needs, including space for lawyers’ chambers and offices. The Bench suggested using the area next to the High Court museum, as well as Ram Darbar in the Industrial Area, for such interim facilities.

The Bench is hearing a petition on the holistic development of the High Court precinct, traffic regulation, parking and related infrastructure issues. The case will now come up for detailed hearing on November 29.

The High Court, on a previous date of hearing, had verbally questioned the very basis of constructing the proposed Tribune flyover, while observing that the city’s Master Plan apparently had no provisions for flyovers.

“The Master Plan is screaming no flyover. How are you going in for it?” the Bench had asked the UT Administration during the hearing on the project. The Bench also sought clarity on whether the Master Plan had been duly notified and due procedure had been followed for its amendment. In response, the counsel assisting the Bench, advocate Tanu Bedi, submitted that the Chandigarh Master Plan was notified in 2015 following the High Court’s intervention and “had never been amended.”

The Bench had also observed that Chandigarh’s uniqueness was “only because of the heritage concept. If that goes, everything goes. The uniqueness goes. It’ll be like any other city.”

The Bench had observed that the issue went beyond a single structure and touched the very core of what made Chandigarh distinctive. “The concept of the city is pitted against the traffic congestion. Now, which one do we give more prominence to and why? Which one is more important?” the Chief Justice had asked.

The court cautioned that allowing even one such deviation could irreversibly alter the city’s identity. “Can we sacrifice the heritage concept because of some traffic congestion somewhere? Builders will come in, and they’ll construct multistorey buildings. And the uniqueness of the heritage quality of the city will go,” the Chief Justice had stated.