Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Background
In a public interest litigation about facilities at the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh, a building forming part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site designed by architect Le Corbusier, the High Court had directed the Chandigarh (UT) Administration to build a verandah in front of Court Room No. 1 (matching existing verandahs outside Court Rooms 2 to 9, to shield lawyers and litigants from sun and rain) and to lay eco-friendly "green paver" blocks in an open green-belt area already being used informally to park 3,000-4,000 vehicles a day. When the Administration failed to start construction within the deadline, the High Court also initiated contempt proceedings against a named engineer. The Administration appealed, arguing that any structural change risked stripping the Capitol Complex of its World Heritage status under UNESCO's Operational Guidelines, since permission from the World Heritage Committee and the Foundation Le Corbusier had not yet been obtained.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld both High Court directions. On the verandah, it found that UNESCO's guidelines only require advance notice for "major restorations or new constructions" that would be difficult to reverse, and that a verandah built in the same design as the pre-existing ones outside Court Rooms 2-9, using modern materials and even a collapsible/removable structure if needed, would not alter the building's Outstanding Universal Value or count as an irreversible change; a 1956 letter on record showed the same verandah had originally been proposed by Le Corbusier's own office and was rejected only on one Chief Justice's personal objection, not any heritage concern. On the green pavers, the Court held that legitimate development (proper parking for lawyers and litigants, given severe shortage against existing capacity) can coexist with environmental protection through sustainable measures, citing its own precedent in Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, and that green paver blocks with interspersed tree planting would restore rather than destroy the green cover. The contempt proceedings against the named engineer were kept in abeyance for twelve weeks to give the Administration a fair chance to comply.
Lesson Learnt
Heritage-conservation guidelines protect against irreversible harm to a monument's core character, not against reasonable, design-matched improvements for the safety and convenience of the people who use it. Courts will look at whether a change is genuinely irreversible and materially damaging before treating heritage status as a bar to necessary public infrastructure.