“Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer Sole Eye-Witness Not Wholly Reliable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Witchcraft Double Murder Case Functional Disability, Not Mere Physical Percentage, Determines Compensation: Kerala High Court Remands Employees’ Compensation Case for Medical Board Assessment Conviction Cannot Rest On Fictitious Memorandums – When Investigation Is Tainted, Benefit Of Doubt Must Follow: MP High Court Legal Objection Cannot Be Sprung in Second Appeal: P&H High Court Draws Sharp Line Between ‘Legal Plea’ and ‘Legal Objection’ When Foundational Facts Are Seriously Disputed, Writ Court Ought Not To Undertake A Fact-Finding Exercise: Kerala High Court Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations Husband’s Salary Slips Are Personal Information: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Disclosure Under RTI

P&H High Court’s Infrastructure Push: One-Week Fire-Safety Deadline, 60-Day Parking Upgrade, and a Constitutional Reminder to the Executive

23 August 2025 11:49 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Judiciary is the third pillar of democracy… the edifice of democracy will crumble if any of the three pillars is weakened…Issue the fire safety certificate within one week—or we will implead MC Chandigarh.” - Punjab & Haryana High Court passed a time-bound interim order tightening the screws on administrative inaction over judicial infrastructure. The Bench directed that the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, must issue a fire-safety certificate for the newly allotted Sector-17 premises within a week, warned of impleadment upon default, mandated “green pavers” in the kutcha parking within 60 days, and pressed the U.T. Administration to adopt a “facilitative stance” toward urgent space augmentation for the High Court. The ruling underscores that judicial functionality is a democratic imperative, not a discretionary convenience.

Proceeding in a continuing PIL on a “holistic plan” for court infrastructure, the Bench recorded that, pursuant to earlier orders, Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain chaired a joint meeting on 07.08.2025 with the Bar and the U.T. Administration, and a follow-up was scheduled for 20.08.2025. The Court directed that the minutes of both meetings be brought on record on the next date.

At the forefront was safety compliance for the Sector-17 building, already handed over for administrative branches of the High Court. The Court noted with concern that the Municipal Corporation had not issued the requisite fire-safety certificate, “which disables the High Court from taking advantage of the possession handed over of the said four floors including basement,” and therefore ordered issuance “within next one week,” warning that otherwise it would implead the Corporation and “take action in accordance with law.”

Parallelly, easing day-to-day functioning through immediate parking relief was treated as non-negotiable. After the Bar confirmed concurrence with the Building Committee minutes, the Court directed completion of “laying green pavers in kutcha parking within sixty days from today.”

For medium-term accommodation, the Bench took judicial notice that the U.T. Secretariat had shifted to a new complex, leaving parts of the erstwhile building vacant. It directed the Administration to “explore the possibility of allotting two (2) floors for housing the Branches of the High Court which are facing acute shortage of space in Sector-1,” filing an affidavit and, crucially, adopting “a facilitative stance… rather than adversarial.”

The Court anchored these directions in constitutional comity, reminding the Executive that “the requirement/need/constraints of the High Court are the requirement/need/constraints of the Chandigarh Administration,” and cautioning: “It goes without saying that judiciary is the third pillar of democracy… The edifice of democracy will crumble if any of the three pillars is weakened.”

Finally, diagnosing the structural capacity deficit, the Bench recorded that “as against sanctioned strength of 85, the High Court has only 69 operational court-rooms. This dissuades the High Court from working full strength,” beseeching a “pragmatic view” and approval of the Holistic Plan, “be it restrictively.”

The core directions were unambiguous and time-bound. On fire safety: “U.T. Administration is directed to ensure issuance of fire safety certificate by the Municipal Corporation within next one week, failing which this Court will be compelled to implead Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh as party and take action in accordance with law.” On parking: “The U.T. Administration… is directed to complete the work of laying green pavers in kutcha parking within sixty days from today.” On interim accommodation: “This Court thus directs the U.T. Chandigarh Administration to explore the possibility of allotting two (2) floors… by filing affidavit in this regard,” while “adopt[ing] a facilitative stance… rather than adversarial.”

On the longer-term new-building site, the Court consciously held its hand until the 20.08.2025 stakeholder meeting concluded: “this Court refrains from making any comments or directions in this regard.” Listing was fixed thereafter, with pending directions from the 01.08.2025 order to be taken up on the next date.

By welding immediate compliance (fire safety within a week; parking upgrade within 60 days) to an insistence on cooperative federalism in action (“facilitative” not “adversarial”), the Bench situates infrastructure not as a managerial afterthought but as the lifeblood of constitutional adjudication. The message is plain: executive inertia that stymies court functioning imperils democratic equilibrium—and the Court will not permit that equilibrium to slip.

Date of Decision: 13.08.2025

Latest Legal News