Legal battle hots up after stay on building HC verandah
When former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajinder Sachar chronicled the fascinating tale behind the construction of verandahs in front of courtrooms at the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a souvenir, he could not have envisioned that his narrative would resurface decades later during a legal battle over the same issue. This time, the Supreme Court has stepped in to stay an order, directing the construction of another verandah outside the Chief Justice’s courtroom in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Here is the comprehensive backstory and legal reasoning behind the move.
The Supreme Court’s intervention
On January 10, the Supreme Court stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s November 29, 2024, directive to the Chandigarh Administration to construct a verandah outside courtroom number one, being used by the Chief Justice. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also stayed contempt proceedings initiated by the high court against the UT’s Chief Engineer for non-compliance.
The order came in response to a petition filed by the Chandigarh Administration, which argued that the construction would jeopardise the UNESCO World Heritage status of Chandigarh’s Capitol Complex. Representing the UT Administration, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta asserted that altering the iconic building designed by Le Corbusier would compromise its architectural integrity. The Bench was assisted by senior advocate PS Patwalia as the amicus curiae.
Why the verandah?
The idea of constructing a verandah in front of courtroom number one was purportedly born out of necessity, mirroring the practical concerns that led to the construction of verandahs outside other courtrooms decades earlier.
According to Chief Justice Rajinder Sachar’s account in the high court’s golden jubilee souvenir released in 2005-06, courtrooms facing the Secretariat often bore the brunt of wind and rain during the monsoon. Lawyers got drenched while entering the court and advocated for covered walkways. But Le Corbusier, the architect of the Capitol Complex, opposed such additions, prioritising the original design’s aesthetic purity.
Undeterred, a “benevolent conspiracy” unfolded between lawyers and local engineers, leading to the construction of verandahs outside courtrooms two to nine, while Corbusier was in Paris. Upon his return, the architect fumed, but ultimately reconciled with the “mischief” that had been done.
Available information suggests the issue cropped up during discussions held by Chandigarh Heritage Conservation Committee (CHCC) on the Capitol Complex management. Its management plan includes high court’s holistic development, expansion of building adjacent to security personnel building near the Open Hand Monument, iron grill fencing all around the high court’s perimeter and provision of covered verandah in front of courtroom number one.
Among other things, the committee is believed to have taken note of the fact that Chandigarh master plan had provisions for a verandah in front of courtroom number one. But this part of the plan was never executed, while verandahs in front of courtrooms two to nine were constructed. The issue of the verandah providing shelter to people, particularly during the rainy season, was part of the discussion.
The high court order and controversy
The high court Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal in its November 29, 2024, order termed the verandah “dire need of the hour”. The Bench directed the Chandigarh Administration to commence construction within two weeks and complete it within four weeks.
The UT senior standing counsel during the course of hearing informed the Bench that the verandah’s proposed map had been sent to the Archeological Survey of India for approval. It was also informed that in-principle proposal was granted for construction of the verandah in front of courtroom number one, subject to contacting Foundation Le Corbusier Paris “for sharing the required drawings/data related to the project”.
The order emerged amid growing concerns about the high court’s infrastructure. A public interest petition filed by Vinod Dhatterwal and others highlighted overcrowding, inadequate facilities and storage constraints for over five lakh judicial files.
UNESCO heritage concerns
The high court building is part of the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, a UNESCO World Heritage site since 2016. Designed by Le Corbusier, the complex includes the Legislative Assembly, Secretariat and Open Hand Monument. Its iconic design reflects Corbusier’s vision of modern architecture harmonising with natural surroundings.
The Chandigarh Administration’s petition before the Supreme Court contended that any unapproved alteration to the high court’s structure could risk the complex’s heritage tag. Solicitor-General Mehta emphasised the need to protect the international heritage status and avoid altering Corbusier’s masterpiece without proper approval. The Bar does not need the verandah,” Mehta argued.
The debate: Practicality versus preservation
The verandah debate highlights the tension between purported practical considerations and preserving heritage architecture. While the verandah’s proponents argue that it addresses genuine logistical challenges, critics worry that it undermines the architectural ethos of the Capitol Complex. Chief Justice Sachar’s reminiscences illustrate how such disputes are not new, reflecting long-standing friction between functionality and design purity.
Justice Sachar was Acting Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court from May 16, 1975, to May 10, 1976, when he was made a judge in the Rajasthan High Court. He was transferred back to the Delhi High Court in July 1977. He remained the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court from August 6, 1985, till his retirement on December 22, 1985.
The next step
The Supreme Court’s stay ensures that no construction will occur without further deliberation. The case has now drawn national attention, intertwining issues of heritage conservation, judicial infrastructure and purported practicality. Amicus curiae, senior advocate PS Patwalia, will play a crucial role in assisting the court in navigating through these issues.
The larger perspective
At its heart, the controversy brings to fore the challenges of adapting historic structures to modern needs. Chandigarh’s Capitol Complex stands as a global symbol of modernism, but its continued relevance depends on balancing preservation with functional evolution. As the Supreme Court deliberates the matter, its decision will likely set a precedent for how heritage structures are to be managed in the face of growing demands for purported practical amenities.
Whether the verandah outside courtroom number one will see the light of day remains uncertain, but the story it has sparked — rooted in architectural ideals, judicial needs, and historical anecdotes — will undoubtedly resonate for years to come. The case will now come up before the high court on January 16 for further hearing.
