“Reversible, Minimal & Sustainable” – The Supreme Court’s Green Light for Functional Add-Ons to UNESCO Heritage Structures

1. Introduction

In Chandigarh Administration v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2025 INSC 786), the Supreme Court of India was called upon to decide whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court could, in a public-interest writ, compel the Chandigarh Administration (CA) to (i) construct a verandah in front of Court-Room 1 of the heritage High Court building and (ii) pave a kutcha parking area with “green paver” blocks, notwithstanding the structure’s location inside the UNESCO-listed Chandigarh Capitol Complex. The Administration feared that any alteration—however small—might imperil the site’s World Heritage status. The High Court, on the other hand, found the additions essential for litigant convenience, safety, and environmental management.

The Supreme Court, speaking through Mehta, J., affirmed the High Court’s orders, enunciating an important principle: reversible, minimal and purpose-oriented constructions that do not touch the core fabric of a UNESCO site can proceed without breaching the Operational Guidelines, provided that post-facto clearance is pursued and sustainable-development concerns are balanced. It simultaneously validated “green pavers” as an eco-compatible solution within statutorily declared green belts.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Verandah Direction Upheld: The Court held that a light-weight verandah matching the design of those in front of Court-Rooms 2-9 is neither a “major restoration” nor an irreversible change under Para 172 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines; thus it does not threaten the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Capitol Complex.
• Green Paver Blocks Approved: Laying permeable pavers and planting trees at intervals strikes a reasonable balance between heritage, ecology, and the critical parking deficit. Sustainable development doctrine was invoked.
• Contempt Proceedings Deferred: Show-cause against the Chief Engineer was kept in abeyance for 12 weeks to allow compliance.
• Appeals Dismissed: The Chandigarh Administration’s challenge failed; directions of the High Court stand.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents & Authorities Cited

The judgment expressly relies on one modern authority and implicitly on constitutional jurisprudence:

• Rajeev Suri v. DDA (2021 SCC OnLine SC 7): Cited to illustrate that “environment and development are not sworn enemies”; the Court borrowed its articulation of a balancing standard and the concept of “mitigating measures” in infrastructure projects.
• Operational Guidelines for Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Para 172): Although not a “case precedent,” these guidelines framed the pivotal question—what is a “major restoration” or “irreversible” change? The Court distinguished the verandah as a reversible, minimal protective measure.
• Article 136, Constitution: The Court reiterated its limited role in interfering with well-reasoned orders of the High Court, especially in PIL matters grounded in factual assessment and expert consultation.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The reasoning unfolds in two thematic clusters:

a) Heritage-Sensitive Construction

• Reversibility Test: Using Para 172’s phrase “difficult to reverse”, the Court extracted a functional test—if removal or dismantling is possible without damaging the primary heritage fabric, the addition may be permissible.
• Historical Intent: A 1956 letter by Pierre Jeanneret revealed the verandah had earlier been contemplated by the original architects; its rejection was not for heritage but administrative convenience. The Court leveraged this to negate the argument of “alien” design.
• Expert Materials & Modern Techniques: The judgment invites IIT-Roorkee and other experts to design an identical, lightweight extension, underscoring that technology allows heritage-friendly adaptations.

b) Sustainable Parking within a Green Belt

• Existing Usage Reality: The area is already de-facto used for parking; formalising it with permeable pavers mitigates dust pollution and soil erosion.
• Eco-Compatibility of Green Pavers: Their voids allow grass growth and water percolation, aligning with groundwater-recharge objectives of the Master Plan 2031.
• Dual-Use Model: By directing simultaneous tree plantation “at regular intervals,” the Court illustrates “vertical green” plus “ground cover” synergy—a model for future urban green-belt management.

3.3 Projected Impact

• Heritage Jurisprudence Shift: Moves away from an absolutist “no-touch” stance to a nuanced “reversible & minimal” approach; expect future litigants to rely on this for functional improvements to heritage buildings.
• Urban Planning Precedent: Validates permeable parking solutions inside notified green belts when accompanied by compensatory tree cover and sustainability assessments.
• PIL Contours: Re-affirms that High Courts may, in PILs, issue writs of mandamus directing administrative action for court-infrastructure improvements, even against heritage limitations.
• Administrative Conduct: Encourages prompt heritage-impact assessments and proactive liaison with UNESCO bodies, lest delay be viewed as foot-dragging.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Outstanding Universal Value (OUV): The unique cultural / natural significance that makes a property worth World Heritage inscription. Loss or serious alteration can prompt “in-danger” listing.
• Para 172, Operational Guidelines: Obligates States Parties to notify UNESCO of “major or irreversible” works in a heritage property before decisions are made, allowing the Committee to advise.
• Reversible Construction: An addition that can be dismantled without damaging original fabric—e.g., steel-tube verandah bolted to concrete slabs.
• Green Paver Blocks: Interlocking concrete/porous blocks with central voids; filled with soil/grass, they allow storm-water infiltration.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A writ mechanism enabling courts to intervene in matters involving broad public rights, even when no individual victim approaches the court.
• Writ of Mandamus: Judicial command to a public authority to perform a statutory or public duty.
• Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): Study evaluating how a proposed intervention may affect a heritage property’s OUV; prerequisite in many international protocols.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chandigarh Administration crystallises a pragmatic doctrine for India’s heritage sites: functional necessity, environmental stewardship, and conservation can—and must—co-exist. By green-lighting the verandah and permeable parking, the Court sends a clear message: (1) reversible, lightweight add-ons that respect the core fabric of UNESCO sites are legally defensible, and (2) urban green belts may accommodate eco-friendly infrastructure if compensatory greening is embedded.

The ruling thus bridges heritage purity and everyday utility, offering a blueprint for courts, administrators and conservationists grappling with similar tensions nationwide. The precedent is likely to shape future renovations of colonial courts, railway stations, and other listed structures, ushering in an era where “sustainable functionality” becomes an accepted facet of heritage jurisprudence.

— End of Commentary —