India, Sept. 22 -- In Chandigarh's Sector 1 stands the Punjab and Haryana high court, the civic head in Le Corbusier's master plan for India's first planned city. Yet the administration now proposes shifting it to Sarangpur, citing space shortages and heritage restrictions. The truth is starker: the shortage is manufactured, heritage is selectively invoked and relocation would decapitate the city itself. The relocation case rests on claims of inadequate space for judges, lawyers and parking. The facts tell another story. The high court already has 69 courtrooms across four levels. The entire basement belt from B-10 to B-29, with nearly 20 bays that could function as courtrooms, has been converted to mediation centres, Lok Adalats, CCTV rooms, offices, a dispensary and storage. If these areas are restored as courtrooms and ancillary functions are shifted to other city buildings, the so-called shortage disappears. The problem is poor planning, not lack of space. Officials argue UNESCO and heritage rules prevent expansion. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Heritage complexes across India have expanded in place without relocation, including the Delhi high court, which added new wings while retaining character. Even within Chandigarh, heritage has never been absolute. The governor's residence obtained clearance for a new block, and the 60-year-old Chandigarh Golf Club altered its building for security in consequence. When the administration wants something, solutions are found. Heritage becomes an obstacle only when judicial expansion is at stake. Practical, compatible measures exist. Sink one parking level below the central court and, where feasible, add hydraulic multi-level systems on existing lots. Move ancillary facilities and the Advocate General's offices to nearby government buildings or renovated premises in Sector 17's old court complex. All of these respect Le Corbusier's design. There is precedent. Between 2009 and 2016, 16 courtrooms, chambers, lifts and underground parking were added within Sector 1 - all without harming the site's heritage value. On paper, Sarangpur offers open land for a new court complex. On the ground, it is a planning risk. The site has a single main access road, lacks robust civic infrastructure and sits far from the city's institutional core - adding time and cost for lawyers and litigants alike. This is not the relocation of a mall. A constitutional court must be central, visible and accessible. Moving it to Sarangpur would push justice to the margins. If efficiency were the goal, workable options already exist inside Chandigarh: 1. The Sector 17 Old District Court Complex: Redevelop it into a modern facility for mediation and arbitration centres, Bar services, library, training rooms, e-filing, help desks, and the advocate general and allied law offices, with virtual-hearing capability. This will free core space at the high court. 2. Restore basement 10 to 29 as courtrooms: Shift all existing operations here to the Sector 17 complex premises. 3. Expand parking in place: Add a sub-grade level, where feasible, and deploy hydraulic multi-level systems on existing lots. 4. Scale up virtual and hybrid hearings: For short matters, mentioning, etc, video conferencing should be the default with smart cause-list scheduling and mandatory e-filing to reduce footfall without impairing court access. 5. Limited, compensatory forest use for judicial expansion: A small demarcated portion of adjoining forest land may be used, with strict compensatory afforestation at more than 1:1 - balancing ecology with the constitutional mandate of access to justice. These steps are quicker, cheaper and more efficient than Sarangpur, and they keep the high court where it belongs. Le Corbusier's plan was both functional and symbolic. The assembly and high court form the head of Chandigarh. The Leisure Valley and gardens are the lungs. Sector 17 is the heart. Removing the high court would leave the city headless. This is more than a metaphor. The high court is not merely a cluster of rooms. It is the symbol of justice and constitutional authority. Its placement at the city's head keeps justice visible and central to civic life. Chandigarh faces a clear decision: Either reuse under-utilised space, expand sensitively and keep justice at the city's head or shift to Sarangpur, where access is poor, development will take years and the city is left headless. The first option is practical, cost-effective and fast. The second is disruptive, wasteful and symbolically damaging. Chandigarh can protect its heritage and strengthen its justice system without sacrificing its identity. If the administration insists on Sarangpur, the price will not just be inconvenience. It will be cutting Chandigarh's head....