#governmentproject

A wave of sharp criticism erupted immediately after the committee unveiled the new high court design. The developers will build the complex in the Bandra-Kurla Complex . The move, though necessary for larger space, sparked a deep controversy over identity and function.

Terraced hanging gardens create a soothing atmosphere as natural daylight flows through the overhead opening, guiding visitor movement. Challenging the Historical Memory: Can the New Scale Contain the Spirit of Justice?

Mumbai prepares to host a colossal judicial complex. The project spans 30 acres. It includes over 60 lakh square feet of built-up area. The goal is to accommodate 75 courtrooms and meet the rising demands of the judicial system. The construction plan for the new high court design targets a quantum leap in capacity.

However, the budget rose to ₹4,217 crore. This immense scale prompts questions about the new high court design's ability to merge modern efficiency with the civic solemnity expected of a historic building. The Chief Justice of India, Justice B. R. Gavai, emphasized that the structure must represent a temple of justice reflecting democratic values.

Environmental harmony is evident in the building's undulating façade, integrating green courtyards designed to enhance public interaction and comfort. Diverging Paths: A Look at Visitor Flow and Hierarchy

Reviewing the new high court design reveals the planner's intent to regulate user movement. The plan allocates separate entrances and dedicated lifts for judges. This arrangement aims for operational efficiency and judicial speed. Yet, critics interpret it as reinforcing institutional hierarchy.

This segregation drew criticism. Critics saw the design as prioritizing the judiciary's comfort. This came at the expense of the ordinary litigant's experience. Critics described the design as making the litigant feel like a supplicant. This contradicts the globally observed concept of equality, seen in the UK Supreme Court, for instance.

The red brick grants the building historical weight, while repeated vertical openings create a rhythm that balances mass with a sense of stability. Echoes of Old Architecture: The Battle of Classical and Neo-Classical Identity

The core of the dispute lies in the architectural style selection. The committee approved a design following the Classical Neo-Classical style. This choice met fierce backlash.

Some argue this style mimics colonial buildings. They believe it fails to express the current architectural identity of Mumbai. Other architects proposed drawing inspiration from the old Victorian-Gothic charm. They focused on creating open and welcoming spaces.

The criticism centered on the fact that the new high court design overlooked function and sustainability. Critics also questioned the design selection competition process itself. Architects pointed to a lack of transparency and clear criteria.

The simple classical façade with slender columns reflects in calm water, elegantly integrating the building with the surrounding natural lawn and trees. ✦ ArchUp Editorial View

The controversy over the new high court design exposes a systemic conflict between demands for institutional modernity and democratic contextual awareness. The classical design choice signals a preference for articulating authoritative grandeur over functional transparency . This reinforces former Justice Patel's critique of the colonial mindset. Alternative visions focusing on functionality and the heritage of the Victorian Gothic style offer a positive future path. This project exemplifies the need to review selection standards for public projects . This ensures architecture reflects accountability and equality.

Part 1: background

Where and when? In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall

What happened? In a political demonstration during the Republican National Convention in Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire. He was part of a group protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain corporations based in Dallas. No one was hurt or threatened with injury, but some witnesses said they were seriously offended. Johnson was charged and convicted with the desecration of a venerated object, in violation of the Texas Penal Code. In a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Johnson’s actions were symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

Who was involved in this case? Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy

How & why was it brought to the Supreme Court?Johnson burned the flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others. A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his case

Part 2: The Supreme Court 

What was the supreme court’s ruling regarding on the texas vs johnson case? The high court agreed that symbolic speech – no matter how offensive to some – is protected under the First Amendment

The main arguments in the case: In an appeal, Johnson argued that burning the American flag was symbolic speech and protected by the First Amendment. The Texas appeals court agreed and overturned his conviction.Texas argued that the state was seeking to prevent breaches of the peace and to preserve the flag as “a symbol of nationhood and national unity,” but the Court rejected the application of the “fighting words” doctrine and the governmental interest in protecting a symbol.Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. ... A Texas court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment

Why is texas vs johnson a landmark case? The Supreme Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a Texas flag desecration law. The 5-4 decision has served as the center point of a continuing debate regarding the value of free speech as exercised through the burning of the U.S. flag as a form of political protest.

Part 3: What do I think?

Did the supreme court make the right decision? Yes they did make the right decision because they understand that burning the flag is symbolic speech even if that speech is offensive to anyone, they’re willing to listen to that speech.

What do you feel should be changed? I think nothing about this case should be changed.