The new Bombay High Court design: a bold statement that's sparking serious debate. Just weeks after the foundation was laid, the proposed design for the new Bombay High Court complex in Bandra is facing intense scrutiny. Former Justice Gautam Patel, along with several architects, are raising concerns that the neo-colonial design will intimidate those it's meant to serve: the litigants. But here's where it gets controversial: the very essence of justice could be at stake.
This criticism comes hot on the heels of the foundation laying. Justice Patel minced no words, stating, "It (the building) is reflective of some colonial mindset from the look of it. It is meant to intimidate." He highlighted the lack of connection to Mumbai's unique architectural styles, calling the design "entirely inappropriate."
The discussion unfolded at an exhibition showcasing architectural proposals for the new High Court building, organized by the Mumbai Architects Collective. Justice Patel and architect Mustansir Dalvi warned that the chosen design risked becoming a monument to judicial grandeur, rather than a functional, climate-resilient court that embodies constitutional values.
Let's break down the specifics. The approved design by Hafeez Contractor includes a massive complex on a 30.16-acre plot, boasting over 50 lakh square feet of built-up area. It's set to feature 75 "advanced" courtrooms, judges' residences, and more. The centerpiece? A 450-meter-long semi-circular facade, a 50-meter-high Ashoka Pillar, and a 70-meter central dome. The PWD is already opening bids for construction, with a notice dated October 28.
Justice Patel points out a fundamental flaw: the design seems to prioritize the needs of judges and lawyers, pushing the litigant to the background. He argues that this design misses a crucial opportunity to redefine the architecture of justice. The former judge believes the design emphasizes power over democratic openness. "These are meant for judges to feel grand. They are grand enough as it is," he stated.
Architect Mustansir Dalvi echoed the sentiment, criticizing the imposing facade and dome. He remarked, "When I saw this design first, instantly it popped into my head: this is the Government House in Calcutta. This is definitely a colonial design; not the building that we need to emulate." He pointed out that the design evokes grandeur and royalty, not convenience for the people who will use the building. Dalvi also raised concerns about accessibility, stating that the design might not be disabled-friendly.
Justice Patel also shared his experience with the vast court campuses in Gujarat, Jodhpur, and Lucknow, highlighting the difficulties litigants and lawyers face navigating these spaces. He emphasized the need for a design that considers the practical needs of those using the building, including waiting areas, spaces for private conversations, good acoustics, and non-slip surfaces suited to Mumbai's monsoons.
The exhibition also revealed a critical perspective on the PWD's project brief. One architect questioned the comprehensiveness of the 23-page document compared to international standards. Abha Narain Lambah, whose firm submitted a design, acknowledged that the selection might not align with contemporary architectural tastes but emphasized the fairness of the process. She also noted that the judges expressed a desire for scale and symbolism, repeatedly using the word "monumentality."
Justice Patel's final warning: the Bandra scheme, as it stands, "is a design which should devoutly wish and pray should never be done." He calls for a more sensible design, one that prioritizes the litigant.
On November 5, then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai laid the foundation stone for the ₹4,127-crore Bandra complex, advocating for a design that avoids extravagance. He echoed the sentiments of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who called for "democratic grandeur" and a promise of justice. The former CJI added that the building should be a temple of justice, not a luxury hotel.
So, what do you think? Does the design truly serve the needs of those seeking justice? Is the focus on monumentality justified, or does it overshadow the importance of the litigant? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
