The proposal to shift the Punjab and Haryana High Court from its current location in Sector 1, Chandigarh has sparked intense opposition from the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (PHHCBA). On September 22, 2025, the Bar Association’s General House unanimously resolved that the High Court must remain at its present location, despite the challenges of expansion.
The debate highlights three critical issues at the heart of India’s judicial infrastructure crisis: heritage protection, environmental sustainability, and the need for modern court facilities.
Background: Why Relocation Was Proposed
The Punjab & Haryana High Court, designed by legendary architect Le Corbusier, is located within the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, a site designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Its location also falls in the catchment area of Sukhna Lake, a protected ecological zone.
These factors limit the scope for physical expansion of the existing premises. To address growing demands for courtrooms and facilities, two options were under consideration:
- Expanding at the existing site – subject to strict restrictions and multiple approvals, or
- Relocating the High Court to Sarangpur village in Chandigarh, where a new complex could be built.
On August 20, 2025, the PHHCBA Executive Committee passed a resolution favoring relocation to Sarangpur. However, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Ramesh Kumari directed that the resolution be placed before the Bar’s General House, which ultimately rejected the move.
PHHCBA’s Resolution Against Relocation
The General House of PHHCBA on September 22 unanimously resolved that the High Court should not be shifted “under any circumstances.” The resolution laid down four key points:
- No Relocation: The High Court must not be shifted to Sarangpur or any other alternative site.
- De-reservation of Forest Land: The Bar will strive to secure de-reservation of adjoining forest land for expansion at the current site.
- Best Interest of Justice: Continuation of the High Court at the present location is essential for the legal fraternity, litigants, and administration of justice.
- Communication to Authorities: Copies of the resolution will be forwarded to the Chief Justice and companion judges of the High Court, the Union Law Minister, Chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana, and the Chandigarh Administrator.
This firm opposition underscores the Bar’s commitment to heritage preservation and its belief that the High Court should remain in its historic location.
The Environmental and Heritage Challenge
The biggest obstacle to expansion at the current site is the forest land adjoining the High Court, located near Court No. 69.
- Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain had written to the Chandigarh Administration seeking de-reservation of the land for extension of the High Court.
- However, the Department of Forests and Wildlife opposed the request, calling it an “eco-fragile lush green patch” of reserve forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The department noted that:
- The land is part of Sukhna Lake/Wetland catchment (Survey of India map, 2004).
- It falls within the Eco-Sensitive Zone of Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 in 2017.
Given these restrictions, any expansion will require clearance from UNESCO and multiple environmental authorities.
Chandigarh Administration’s Proposal
Acknowledging these challenges, the Chandigarh Administration recently proposed a holistic expansion plan at the existing High Court site. This plan includes:
- Construction of 16 additional courtrooms,
- Three-level basement parking for 400 cars,
- Space for administrative and judicial branches,
- Lawyers’ chambers, and
- A modern cafeteria.
This plan would add nearly 2 lakh square feet of built-up area, but it remains subject to approvals from UNESCO and environmental authorities.
Alternatively, if the High Court is relocated to Sarangpur, the proposed complex could house:
- 140 courtrooms,
- A total built-up area of 42,38,388 square feet, compared to the current projected requirement of 31,71,000 square feet.
The relocation option promises long-term scalability, but it comes at the cost of heritage continuity and lawyers’ opposition.
Why the Bar Association Opposes Relocation
The PHHCBA’s opposition to relocation is driven by several factors:
- Heritage Significance: The current High Court is part of Le Corbusier’s architectural legacy and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Moving it elsewhere risks diminishing this cultural value.
- Accessibility: The High Court’s location in Sector 1, Chandigarh makes it centrally accessible to lawyers, litigants, and government offices. Relocating to Sarangpur may cause logistical challenges.
- Environmental Safeguards: Lawyers argue that expansion within the existing site, even if limited, is more viable than disturbing an entirely new ecosystem.
- Legal Tradition: Courts often carry symbolic value, and the PHHCBA believes the continuity of the judicial institution at its historic location is important for public confidence.
Balancing Judicial Infrastructure and Heritage Protection
The dispute highlights a broader dilemma facing Indian courts: how to modernize judicial infrastructure while protecting heritage and ecology.
- On one hand, courts need more space, modern facilities, and technology-driven infrastructure to handle rising caseloads.
- On the other, courts like the Punjab & Haryana High Court are heritage institutions situated in environmentally sensitive zones.
Balancing these interests requires innovative solutions—perhaps a hybrid approach combining limited expansion at the existing site with the development of satellite court complexes.
What Lies Ahead
The issue remains unresolved as of September 2025. Key stakeholders include:
- PHHCBA, which is firmly against relocation.
- Chandigarh Administration, which favors a new site for scalability.
- UNESCO and environmental authorities, whose approval is mandatory for any expansion at the existing site.
- High Court judges, who will ultimately need a functional space that meets the growing demands of justice.
The coming months will be critical in determining whether heritage preservation or infrastructure expansion takes precedence.
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court relocation debate represents more than just a logistical question—it is a test case for India’s judicial infrastructure planning in the 21st century. The Bar Association’s strong opposition reflects the deep symbolic and functional value of the High Court’s current location.
At the same time, the increasing caseload and infrastructural demands cannot be ignored. Whether through expansion, relocation, or a balanced middle path, the outcome will set an important precedent for future judicial infrastructure reforms across India.
For now, one thing is clear: the Punjab & Haryana High Court will remain in Chandigarh’s Capitol Complex, at least until a consensus emerges between heritage, environment, and judicial efficiency.
Supreme Court Refuses to Quash Money Laundering Case Against Jacqueline Fernandez: What It Means
