India, Aug. 29 -- Long before today's space crisis in the Punjab and Haryana high court at Chandigarh, the Supreme Court made it clear: Justice must be within everyone's reach. Justice rests on access, making this debate about people and rights, not bricks and mortar. Articles 14, 21 and 39A make access to justice a right and a State duty; courts out of reach make that right illusory. This space crunch stems from deeper pressures: Rising filings from population growth and economic activity, avoidable litigation from administrative delays and non-compliance, growing public awareness, and increasingly complex procedures. Any solution must anticipate future growth, while preserving the high court's central role for Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. The real question is: Which option strengthens access to justice, and which weakens it. With that in mind, we turn to the options at hand. Relocation promises land and new buildings, but access depends on everyday infrastructure, and that infrastructure is collapsing. In recent months, the administration has failed at basic civic duties: Roads flood within 30 minutes of routine rain, stranding vehicles and pedestrians for hours; potholes remain unrepaired for months, turning major roads into obstacle courses; water crises leave entire sectors with muddy, undrinkable tap water; power cuts paralyse the city every monsoon. Even garbage clearance needed court intervention and perjury notices, with compliance still uncertain. This is the same administration now promising seamless access to Sarangpur, while the approach road today collapses at the PGI choke point. If they cannot maintain roads and basic amenities in a planned city, why trust them to build and sustain a highway network to an even more isolated site? Moving the high court there would put justice at the mercy of the same failed promises. The evidence is overwhelming: Every major infrastructure promise has failed. Access to justice cannot rest on the Chandigarh administration's questionable competence. Regional benches may look convenient, but the Supreme Court in Roger Mathew (2019) warned that executive control over tribunals erodes judicial independence and violates separation of powers. On the ground, the problems are clear: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Chandigarh halted hearings over water seepage; the Armed Forces Tribunal slowed to a crawl, forcing escalations; consumer commissions, with token penalties, fail to deter misconduct while companies carry on and consumers lose, and Articles 14 and 21 remain unfulfilled. The real risk with regional high court benches is this: Split resources, thinner oversight, and uneven capacity without fixing the core issue of access. The answer is a single, visible, well-resourced high court that people can reliably reach. A new complex at the former furniture-market site within Chandigarh offers clear advantages: Proximity to district courts, better road connectivity from multiple directions across Punjab, Haryana and the UT, and scope to reduce congestion. It avoids isolation while allowing modern infrastructure without interrupting the current high court during construction. Still, shifting the entire judicial ecosystem, libraries, records, and everything else, means years of transition and duplication of existing investments. If relocation becomes unavoidable, this site is far more sensible than Sarangpur. The most practical solution is to remain within the Capitol Complex and expand vertically or into unutilised adjoining areas. Modern construction methods allow new blocks and multi-level facilities while courtrooms and records continue to function. This preserves institutional continuity, avoids the chaos of a move, and keeps the court where generations of citizens can reach it. Temporary construction inconvenience is preferable to permanent isolation. If a forest strip must be disturbed to let the rule of law prevail, we need to do it. The project can carry strict ecological offsets: Plant three trees for every tree felled in Sarangpur, or mandate that every litigant plant a tree and attach proof of plantation along with the court fee. In the search for solutions to space crunch at the high court, the stakes are not merely logistical but constitutional. When access falters, justice stalls, and those who abuse power thrive. The high court is the common man's final defence against administrative overreach. Distance or fragmentation chips away at that defence. The Constitution insists on justice that is accessible and visible. This is best ensured by expanding the current premises, or, if relocation ever becomes unavoidable, by choosing only the furniture market site for the reasons already stated....