No Flyovers in Chandigarh: High Court Upholds Master Plan 2031, Allows Underpass Option
High Court Stays Tribune Chowk Flyover, Upholds Chandigarh's Heritage Character,Says Chandigarh's Heritage Cannot Be Sacrificed
Baljit Balli / Babushahi Network
Chandigarh, May 29, 2026: In a landmark judgment aimed at preserving the unique character, heritage and urban planning principles of Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday ordered a complete halt to the construction of the proposed flyover at Tribune Chowk, one of the city's busiest traffic intersections.
The Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry made it clear that Chandigarh's original planning concept and statutory Master Plan cannot be compromised in the name of traffic management.
The ruling came on a petition challenging the proposed flyover project, which had been planned to ease traffic congestion at Tribune Chowk.
During the hearing, the High Court made a strong and significant observation, stating that "Chandigarh was designed for pedestrians, not merely for vehicular traffic." The Bench observed that the city's open roads, greenery, and expansive public spaces constitute its globally recognised identity and must be protected at all costs.
Referring extensively to the Chandigarh Master Plan (CMP)-2031, the Court held that the construction of flyovers and overbridges within Chandigarh is prohibited under the statutory planning framework. The Bench observed that such structures would adversely affect the city's aesthetics, heritage value and original architectural vision conceived for the City Beautiful.
The Court noted that while traffic congestion is a genuine concern, solutions must be found within the framework of the Master Plan and without damaging Chandigarh's distinctive urban character.
What the Court Ordered
In the operative part of its judgment, the High Court restrained the Chandigarh Administration from proceeding with the construction of the proposed flyover at Tribune Chowk, holding that the project would violate the provisions of CMP-2031.
However, the Bench clarified that the Chandigarh Administration would be at liberty to construct an underpass at Tribune Chowk, as underpasses are permissible under CMP-2031 and may be considered as an alternative solution for decongesting traffic.
The Court also restrained the UT Administration from cutting any mango tree or any other tree standing in and around Tribune Chowk.
Emphasising the need to preserve Chandigarh's unique identity, the Bench directed the Administration to maintain the city's green, heritage and architectural character, particularly in Phase-I sectors (Sectors 1 to 30), including Dakshin Marg, which forms an integral part of Chandigarh's heritage zone.
The High Court further directed the Administration to encourage greater use of public transportation and reduce dependence on personal motor vehicles. The Bench observed that public transport should be utilised to the maximum extent possible for intra-city travel so as to minimise congestion and limit the use of private vehicles.
The Court expressed hope that the Chandigarh Administration would adopt sustainable and environmentally friendly measures to address traffic challenges while preserving the city's original ambience and planning philosophy.
With these directions, the petition was allowed and disposed of by the Division Bench on May 29, 2026.
The petition was filed by Jagwant Singh Bath and others
Click to read the order copy:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fzuFg7A5jdBveM3pSV5fOyzUktzg_sNQ/view?usp=sharing
List of the counsels :
Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate (arguing counsel) with
Mr. Balvinder Sangwan and Mr. Krishna Maurya, Advocates,
for the petitioners.
----------------------
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate/Senior Standing Counsel,
U.T. Chandigarh (arguing counsel) with
Ms. Shubreet Kaur Saron, Addl. Standing Counsel, and
Dr. Eliza Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent – U.T. Chandigarh.
--------------------
Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate/Senior Panel Counsel
(arguing counsel) with
Mr. Himanshu Bindal, Advocate,
for respondent – UOI.