4 min readChandigarhMay 29, 2026 06:25 PM IST
In a significant order delivered on Friday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that the proposed flyover at Tribune Chowk on Dakshin Marg cannot be constructed as it would contravene the provisions of the Chandigarh Master Plan-2031.
Pronouncing the order in open court, a bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu held that while an underpass could be considered as an alternative traffic solution, the flyover was impermissible under the Master Plan. The court also directed the Chandigarh administration to preserve and maintain the original character and urban design of the city, particularly in the Phase-I sectors, including the stretch along Dakshin Marg.
The bench further stressed the need to strengthen and expand public transport infrastructure in Chandigarh, noting that an efficient public transport system is essential to reduce dependence on personal vehicles and tackle growing traffic congestion in the tri-city area.
Tree felling stayed earlier
The development comes after the High Court had earlier stayed the felling of trees — including decades-old mango trees — for the proposed project. Taking note of arguments that many of these trees had been standing for more than half a century, the court had restrained authorities from felling or lopping any tree in the vicinity of Tribune Chowk.
“Since the matter has been heard and is to be finally decided at an early date, it would be appropriate to restrain the respondents from felling or lopping any mango tree or any other tree in the vicinity of the Tribune Chowk,” the bench had observed.
Petitioners’ arguments on heritage and planning
The order was passed on a petition challenging the flyover project on grounds that it violated Chandigarh’s carefully planned urban framework and heritage character. Advocate Tanu Bedi, representing the petitioners, argued that the proposed flyover was contrary to the Master Plan-2031, which envisions Chandigarh as a pedestrian- and cycle-friendly city.
She contended that flyovers would adversely impact the visual cityscape, green belts, and the non-motorised transport ecosystem. Expanding infrastructure exclusively for private vehicles would merely shift congestion from one point to another rather than solving it, she said, describing the flyover as “a death knell to Chandigarh heritage”.
UT administration’s defence
Opposing the petition, UT senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji argued that the Master Plan did permit construction of flyovers. He submitted that only Sectors 1 to 30 are recognised as heritage zones and that the project site at Tribune Chowk falls in Phase-II (Sector 31 onwards), which was designed for higher density and modern infrastructure needs.
Story continues below this ad
Jhanji emphasised that Chandigarh’s population dynamics have changed drastically since its inception. “While the city was planned for five lakh people, the tri-city population now exceeds 15 lakh,” he said, adding that infrastructure could not remain “frozen in 1950s concepts.”
Defending the project as a “functional necessity”, the counsel pointed to severe traffic snarls lasting up to 1.5 hours for commuters entering from Zirakpur and Delhi sides. He also informed the court that the project had already survived earlier judicial scrutiny, with a previous stay on tree felling vacated by the High Court and a related Special Leave Petition withdrawn in the Supreme Court in September 2024.
On environmental concerns, Jhanji submitted that mitigation measures, including plantation of 2,799 saplings at a 5:1 ratio, were in place, and all requisite clearances would be obtained.
Long-standing dispute.
The controversy over the Tribune Chowk flyover has been simmering since 2019, with repeated litigation delaying the project and causing cost escalations. Proponents argue it is critical to ease chronic traffic bottlenecks at one of the busiest junctions connecting Chandigarh with its rapidly urbanising periphery. Critics, however, maintain that the solution lies in better public transport, traffic management, and adherence to Le Corbusier’s vision for the city rather than large-scale elevated infrastructure that alters its unique character.
