The long-running debate over the proposed flyover at Chandigarh’s busy Tribune Chowk took a dramatic turn on Friday after the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that the project cannot move forward in its current form. In a decision that has reignited discussions around urban development, heritage conservation and environmental balance, the court observed that the proposed flyover on Dakshin Marg goes against the provisions laid down in the Chandigarh Master Plan-2031.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu stated in open court that the construction of the flyover was “impermissible” under the city’s planning framework. At the same time, the court indicated that an underpass could still be explored as a possible traffic solution, offering the administration an alternative path without disturbing Chandigarh’s original urban design.
The ruling is being seen as much more than a legal setback for a traffic project. For many residents, architects and environmentalists, it represents a larger battle over the identity of Chandigarh itself — a city internationally admired for its structured planning, green spaces and unique architectural heritage.
For years, Tribune Chowk has remained one of the most congested intersections in the city. Thousands of commuters travelling from Zirakpur, Panchkula, Mohali and Delhi routinely face long traffic snarls during peak hours. The UT administration had defended the flyover by arguing that the city’s infrastructure must evolve with rising population pressure. Officials pointed out that Chandigarh was originally designed for around five lakh residents, while the population of the entire tri-city region has now crossed 15 lakh.
According to the administration, the flyover was not merely a development project but a practical necessity. Lawyers representing the UT administration argued before the court that traffic jams at Tribune Chowk often stretch for more than an hour, causing frustration, pollution and delays for daily commuters. They maintained that modern infrastructure solutions were unavoidable in a rapidly growing urban region.
However, the petitioners challenging the project presented an entirely different perspective. Advocate Tanu Bedi, appearing for those opposing the flyover, argued that Chandigarh was never designed to become a city dominated by elevated roads and concrete structures. She told the court that the Master Plan-2031 clearly promotes a pedestrian-friendly and cycle-friendly city model where urban planning focuses on greenery, accessibility and visual harmony rather than large flyover networks.
The petitioners warned that building more infrastructure for private vehicles often shifts congestion from one point to another instead of solving traffic problems permanently. They argued that once a city begins prioritising flyovers over sustainable transport systems, it slowly loses its original character. During the hearing, the proposed project was described as “a death knell to Chandigarh heritage,” a phrase that reflected the emotional intensity surrounding the issue.
Environmental concerns also became a major focus during the proceedings. Earlier in the case, the High Court had temporarily stayed the felling and lopping of trees near Tribune Chowk after concerns were raised over decades-old mango trees and other mature greenery standing in the area. Some of these trees, according to submissions made before the court, had existed for more than half a century.
The Bench had observed that such old trees are not easily replaceable and deserve protection, especially in a city like Chandigarh where green belts form a critical part of its identity. While the administration assured the court that compensatory plantation measures were being planned — including nearly 2,799 saplings at a 5:1 ratio — concerns remained over the immediate environmental damage and long-term visual impact of the flyover.
The administration also informed the court that the project had already faced years of delays because of litigation. Officials argued that the prolonged legal battle since 2019 had significantly escalated costs and slowed down the city’s development plans. They further submitted that all environmental clearances would be obtained before any construction activity began.
Yet, despite these arguments, the High Court appeared determined to protect Chandigarh’s planning philosophy. The Bench specifically directed authorities to preserve the original urban character of the city, especially in Phase-I sectors and along the Dakshin Marg stretch. The judges also stressed that strengthening public transport systems should become a priority instead of encouraging excessive dependence on private vehicles.
Urban planning experts believe the verdict could influence future infrastructure projects not only in Chandigarh but also in other planned cities across India. The judgment sends a strong message that development projects must align with environmental sustainability and original planning principles rather than focusing only on traffic expansion.
The court’s suggestion of an underpass instead of a flyover may now become the centre of future discussions within the administration. While an underpass could still address traffic flow issues, it may avoid altering the city’s skyline and preserve the visual openness that Chandigarh is known for.
The ruling has triggered mixed reactions among residents. Many commuters frustrated by daily traffic congestion feel disappointed that the flyover may not move ahead. At the same time, heritage activists, architects and environmental groups have welcomed the decision, saying it protects the soul of Chandigarh from unchecked urbanisation.
As the city continues to grow, the challenge before planners and policymakers is becoming increasingly clear — how to modernise infrastructure without damaging the vision on which Chandigarh was built. Friday’s High Court verdict has now firmly placed that question at the centre of the city’s future.