Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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