New Bombay High Court building design colonial, doesn't prioritise litigants: Former Justice Gautam Patel

The approved design of the new Bombay High Court complex at Bandra has drawn sharp criticism from a former judge and several architects who say its monumental, neo‑colonial design will intimidate litigants rather than serve them.

The pushback comes barely a month after the foundation for the new building was laid.

“It (the building) is reflective of some colonial mindset from the look of it. It is meant to intimidate. It has not even a token nod to Mumbai's architectural styles. It is entirely inappropriate and it has nothing in this that reflects either the city or the old High Court building," former Bombay High Court Justice Gautam Patel said.

The discussion took place at an exhibition of the architectural competition proposals for the new High Court building. Justice Patel and architect-academic Mustansir Dalvi warned that the winning proposal risked becoming a monument to judicial grandeur instead of a functional, climate‑resilient court that embodies constitutional values.

The exhibition, organised by the Mumbai Architects Collective, showcased proposals by Abha Narain Lambah Associates, Somaya Sampat, PKDA Architects and Sanjay Puri Architects, along with the winning scheme by architect Hafeez Contractor.

As per the Public Works Department (PWD) approved design of Contractor, the new complex on a 30.16‑acre plot between the Kalanagar and Kherwadi flyovers will span more than 50 lakh square feet of built‑up area. It will have 75 “advanced” courtrooms, judges’ residences, mediation and arbitration centres, libraries, bar rooms, an auditorium, multi‑level parking for nearly 5,000 vehicles and extensive digitisation and fire‑safety systems.

The main building will feature a 450‑metre‑long semi‑circular facade, fronted by a 50‑metre‑high Ashoka Pillar and capped by a 70‑metre central dome, enclosing a “vast central atrium filled with natural light and openness” and a grand circular staircase as its sculptural centrepiece.

PWD will also be opening bids from contractors to kick start construction work for the building from December 19, as per a notice dated October 28.

Justice Patel said that the plan represented an “inversion of the pyramid”, where the needs of judges and lawyers dominate. He added that the one party that matters most in this entire exercise - the litigant - is pushed to the bottom.

He argued that the State and the court administration had missed a great opportunity to redefine the vocabulary of the justice delivery system and of the architecture of justice by commissioning a design that is meant to reduce the litigant to a supplicant with folded hands before a court. 

The former judge said that the chosen design embodied monumentality as an expression of power rather than democratic openness. 

“These are meant for judges to feel grand. They are grand enough as it is,” he said.

Architect and academic Mustansir Dalvi was critical of the proposed 450‑metre‑long semi‑circular facade crowned by a central dome. 

“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 said.

Dalvi said that the Bandra proposal created an impression of grandeur and royalty and not convenience for the living.

“When I see the staircases of the structure, I see a disabled‑unfriendly place; elements that are provided to create drama, to create a certain image of grandeur and a certain image almost of royalty and aristocracy...Is that the image that the honourable judges are trying to create for themselves?”

Justice Patel also highlighted the difficulties for lawyers and litigants navigating vast, imposing court campuses like those in Gujarat, Jodhpur and Lucknow. 

“You can't have too great a distance because distance then becomes a barrier to the adjudicating process and it lends to a certain level of hostility," he said.

He stressed that Mumbai’s new complex must provide places for litigants to wait, to meet lawyers for private and confidential conversation, good acoustics, lighting and non‑slip surfaces suited to the city’s monsoons.

The exhibition also turned a spotlight on the PWD’s brief for the project submitted to the architects. One of the architects who submitted a proposal claimed that the PWD’s 23-page document could not be called a brief, when compared to international competitions where independent specialists draft exhaustive briefs and jury reasons are made public.

The architect was critical that such a system did not exist here “even for a project as large and as important as this”.

Abha Narain Lambah, whose firm also submitted a design, drew a distinction between the outcome and the integrity of the process as she saw it.

“I think the decision and the selection might not be what is to an architectural contemporary taste. But I would like to say that the process was fair,” she said.

She also recalled that the presentation before the committee of about 30 judges (with more on video call) did not seem to be swayed by political pressure.

Lambah clarified that the judges, however, communicated to architects their desire for scale and symbolism.

“Every time they spoke that they want to build a High Court for the future, they mentioned the word 'monumentality' at least 10 times.”

Justice Patel warned that the Bandra scheme, as it stands, “is a design which should devoutly wish and pray should never be done.” He called for something more sensible, nuanced and conservative than the present design.

“There is not even a token nod to the importance of the litigant in the development of this building. It is about time we got to the pyramid and decided to put the litigant at the top of it, not at the bottom of it,” he concluded.

On November 5, then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai laid the foundation stone for the ₹4,127‑crore Bandra complex, insisting that the new building should not be extravagant, as judges are no more feudal lords and serve the citizens under the Constitution.

He echoed the sentiments of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who urged that the project reflect “democratic grandeur and not imperialistic grandeur” and “give a promise to everybody that they will get justice here.”

The former CJI cautioned,

“While maintaining the grandeur and iconic structure of the building, it should also be ensured that there is no extravagance, that it is ultimately a temple of justice, not a seven‑star hotel.”

He added that the High Court building committee and architect can make necessary modifications to the plan while also considering future demands and needs of litigants after taking views from the lawyers' associations.