HC hears Chandigarh flyover case: UT cites traffic need, petitioner flags Master Plan ban
She argued that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday heard rival submissions on the Chandigarh flyover project, with the UT Administration defending it as essential infrastructure and the opposing side terming it contrary to statutory planning norms.
At the onset, advocate Tanu Bedi assisting the court in the matter attacked the very foundation of the project by asserting that Chandigarh Master Plan (CMP) 2031 — “a statutory document notified under the Capital of Punjab Act and the Periphery Control Act” — was binding in nature and “explicitly does not recommend the construction of flyovers or over-bridges within the city limits”.
She argued that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed. The subcommittee, which allegedly cleared the project, had “a limited mandate restricted to managing the Capital Complex and minor heritage issues” and “lacked the jurisdictional authority to approve a major infrastructure intervention like a flyover”.
Questioning the project’s genesis, Bedi contended that the Engineering Department had approached the issue with a “preset mind”, pointing out that tenders requiring prior flyover experience were floated as early as 2017 — “before any traffic studies or alternative options were explored.”
She further submitted that the Chief Architect and Department of Urban Planning had, through formal communications between 2018 and 2020, consistently opposed the proposal as being contrary to Chandigarh’s planning logic.
On environmental grounds, Bedi warned of “irreparable ecological damage” due to the proposed felling of mature trees in a Grade-I heritage zone, including the city’s mango orchards. She added that the flyover’s proposed alignment terminating in front of GMCH-32 — a notified silence zone — could disrupt hospital functioning.
She also referred to the 2019 public hearing submitting that “a significant majority of participants, 46 against versus 21 in favour, opposed the construction,” and argued that mandatory Indian Road Congress norms — requiring exhaustion of alternative traffic measures before resorting to flyovers — had not been followed. Bedi pressed for an interim prohibition on tree felling.
Opposing the plea, UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji on the other hand maintained that the project had already survived judicial scrutiny. He pointed out that the high court had vacated the stay after a “comprehensive review of the merits,” and that the challenge to this order before the Supreme Court did not survive as Special Leave Petition was withdrawn in September 2024.
Invoking the provisions of Specific Relief Act, Jhanji argued that there existed a statutory bar on courts granting injunctions that “impede or delay the progress of essential infrastructure projects.” Defending the project on necessity, he submitted that Chandigarh’s population dynamics had drastically changed. “While the city was planned for five lakh people, the Tricity population now exceeds 15 lakh,” he argued, adding that infrastructure could not remain “frozen in 1950s concepts.”
Describing the flyover as a “functional necessity,” Jhanji pointed to traffic snarls lasting up to 1.5 hours for commuters entering from Zirakpur and Delhi. He further contended that the project fell within Phase II (Sector 31 onwards), which was designed for higher density and modern infrastructure, unlike the heritage-sensitive Phase I.
On environmental concerns, he submitted that mitigation measures were already underway, including plantation of 2,799 saplings at a 5:1 ratio. He added that prolonged litigation since 2019 had “stalled the city’s progress by a decade,” causing cost escalations and public inconvenience, while assuring that all environmental clearances would be obtained before execution.
