Supreme Court: HC Administration Under Obligation To Provide Appropriate Facilities For Lawyers & Litigants Who Throng The Courts

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the decision of the High Court in directing construction of the verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 in alignment with the design of the pre-existing verandahs in front of Court Room Nos. 2 to 9 is absolutely justified and would not violate the UNESCO guidelines. At the same time, if so required, the administration would not be precluded from seeking ex-post facto approval for this minimal protective measure which is considered necessary without admitting any exception. The impugned orders dated 29th November, 2024 and 13th December, 2024 do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta and Aashish Chopra represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The High Court had issued directives, including concerning the construction of a verandah in front of Court Room No.1 of the High Court. The UT Administration had informed the High Court that the proposed map of the Verandah had been sent to the Archaeological Survey of India.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court noted paragraph 172 of the "Operational Guidelines" for the World Heritage Convention, which states that "major restorations or new constructions which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property" should be communicated in advance, especially decisions "that would be difficult to reverse".

The Bench remarked that “we have no doubt in our minds that the construction of the verandah in front of the main Court Room i.e., Court Room No. 1 was being mooted by the Concerned Authority way back in 1956 and had the Chief Justice consented, the construction would have happened long back.”

The Bench stated, “The reasons for the construction of the verandah have been highlighted in the order of the High Court and we have no reason to take a different view. The High Court administration is best placed to take a suitable decision as to what are the precise requirements for preservation of the building and simultaneously provide protection to the stakeholders from the elements. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Court administration is under an obligation to provide appropriate facilities for the lawyers and the litigants who throng the Courts.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “In order to give a breathing space to the CA (appellant herein), it is provided that the contempt proceedings initiated vide order dated 13th December, 2024 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of twelve weeks so as to enable the CA (appellant herein) to comply with the order dated 29th November, 2024 passed by the High Court.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the Appeal.

Cause Title: Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court Of Punjab And Haryana, Chandigarh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 786)

Appearance:

Appellant: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; Advocates Kanu Agrawal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Krishna Kant Dubey and Varun Chugh; AOR Shreekant Neelappa Terdal

Respondents: Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta and Aashish Chopra; AOR Ashok Mathur and Somiran Sharma; Advocates Japneet Kaur, Vriti Gujral, Bikram Dwivedi, Manu Bhardwaj and Varun Aryan Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment