Punjab CM House Road Closed Since 1980 Terrorism, High Court Says Citizens Cannot Be Put To Inconvenience On Account Of Alleged Protected Person

Observing that citizens cannot be put to any inconvenience on account of the alleged protected person, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has questioned the closing of the road in front of Punjab Chief Minister (CM) house which was blocked for security purpose during 1980 terrorism.

A division bench of Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji noted, "Apparently the road towards residence of Haryana Chief Minister is open but the road in front of Punjab Chief Minister remains closed in spite of the fact that there is a 100 feet green belt between the road and the residence of the Chief Minister and thereafter a slow carriage way road. The road was closed during the time of terrorism in the 1980s and things have undergone a sea change since then."

The bench was dealing with a suo moto case from the year 2021 on development plans of Chandigarh amid rising vehicle and traffic issues in the city.

"We do not see any valid reason as such that the citizens of this town can be put to any inconveniences on account of the alleged protected persons, as the security can be beefed up accordingly of the said persons. If the same road infront of the Haryana Chief Minister's house can function then without any valid reason why the road cannot be opened thorough and through for the benefit of the residents," it added.

The bench further said that the observations of the Apex Court time and again is that public roads cannot be closed whether by the general public, by holding demonstrations or as in the present case, by the Administration for all times to come for reasons which apparently are not justified.

While taking suo moto cognisance, the Court had noted that after the days of 1980 terrorism large number of a population has migrated to the City which has led pressure on the infrastructure and problem of heavy traffic jams are being faced by the residents.

The Court had also highlighted the hardships city face for being a Union Territory, "However, since the town is a Union Territory it suffers from futuristic long term development plans on account of administration being headed by the bureaucracy which is posted in Chandigarh on deputation basis for short periods of around 2 to 3 years.The elected representatives are only the Mayor who holds office for one year on rotation basis and a sole Member of Parliament. The town thus suffers from planned infrastructural projects coming up..." noted the Court.

The bench had also noted that the pressure on the town has grown leading to the further influx with more people migrating from Delhi, specially after the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the light of the above certain questions were framed including the requirement of transport system in the form of Mono Rail/Metro Rail to connect the neighbouring towns of Punjab, Himachal and Haryana and steps which needs to be taken by Forest Department and other authorities to maintain the green belt.

Amicus Curiae Amit Jhanji submitted that a comprehensive mobility plan has been prepared  by Chandigarh by engaging M/s RITES Ltd, However the reports from the company on the project is awaited.

The Court noted that the responsibility of the constructing roads had also thus been put on the adjoining respective states which would be both Haryana and Punjab.Hence, it opined that both the States need to be impleaded as respondents. 

Perusing the report submitted by Chandigarh on issue of closing of the roads for protected person, the Court noted that it has been decided to keep them closed for public. "We have been gone through the said report and we are of the considered opinion that report would require reconsideration," it said and listed the matter for December 21.

Appearance: Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae), with Advocate Shashank Shekhar Sharma

Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Dheeral Jain,Sr.  Panel Counsel. For the respondent-UOl.

Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate and Parminder S. Kaul. Advocate. For the respondent-MC, Chandigarh.

Parminder Singh Kanwar, Addl. Standing Counsel For the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.

Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab.

Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana