Rajasthan HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance After IIT Bombay Warns Central Dome May Collapse at Any Moment

A Division Bench at Jodhpur has registered a suo motu PIL after IIT Bombay found the High Court building's Central Dome structurally compromised and at imminent risk of collapse, directing top officials to appear personally on 24 August 2026.

On 10 August 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur — comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar — took suo motu cognizance of the structural condition of its own building, with particular focus on the Central Dome standing at approximately 21 metres. Experts from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay had assessed the Dome to be in a state of imminent collapse, capable of failing without warning and exposing judges, lawyers, staff and litigants to “grave and irreversible danger.” The Bench registered the matter as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution and named the State of Rajasthan, the Union of India, RSRDC Limited and several senior officials as respondents. Senior government officials have been directed to appear in person on the next date.

A Building Inaugurated in 2019, Deteriorating Within Five Years

The chronology recorded in the order traces a rapid decline. Foundation of the current building was laid on 20 April 2007. Construction of the Main Building commenced on 20 April 2011. By the end of 2013, the structural work was complete. The building was handed over on 6 December 2019 and was inaugurated shortly thereafter by the President of India, the Chief Justice of India, the Law Minister, and the Chief Minister, among other dignitaries.

Within five years of taking possession, the building had recorded a succession of structural failures. The Bench catalogued them in detail:

• Before 20 February 2023: False ceilings damaged due to roof fall in Courts No. 2, 9 and 16, and in Chamber No. 16.
• 20 February 2023: False ceiling in Court No. 14 fell due to roof collapse.
• 29 April 2023: A part of the roof in the Dome area fell down.
• 23 June 2023: False ceiling in the Civil Misc. Appeal Section fell due to plaster flaking.
• 28 June 2023: False ceiling in the Bill Section fell due to plaster flaking.
• 12 September 2024: False ceiling in Court No. 19 collapsed after water accumulated in it from seepage.
• 24 September 2024: Roof fell near the lift at Ground Floor, Gate No. 3, opposite the Mediation Centre.
• 18 September 2024: A severe fire broke out in Court No. 2 — the very day after RSRDC Limited had certified it fit for use. The fire-safety system installed by RSRDC failed to activate during the incident.
• 13 April 2025: Plaster of the Dome area fell.
• 1 October 2025: Plaster fell in the Statistics Section.
• 29 November 2025: False ceiling of the corridor towards the Office of the Registrar General collapsed; inspection found the corridor towards the Chamber of the Chief Justice also in a dilapidated condition.

Beyond these discrete incidents, the Court recorded pervasive seepage and water ingress across the building, use of poor-quality sanitary pipes, wholly deficient fire-management systems, defective drainage, and visible progressive cracks in both load-bearing and non-load-bearing structural elements.

What the Expert Committees Found

The order details a sequence of expert interventions, none of which produced lasting remediation.

An Expert Committee of IIT Jodhpur visited the site and submitted a Preliminary Report on 20 March 2023, followed by a Final Report dated 19 April 2023. That report identified collapse of ceilings due to spalling of concrete cover, heavy corrosion in steel reinforcement, corrosion-induced cracking around confinement, severely corroded steel rebars in roof-top periphery columns, improper waterproofing at parapet walls, and de-lamination of tiles near construction joints. The IIT Jodhpur committee noted that the rate of corrosion was high, with significant corrosion visible within a few years of construction. It recommended a comprehensive structural audit by a third party, involving non-destructive testing, corrosion analysis, water quality assessment from bore holes, and chemical analysis of concrete samples.

Following those recommendations, a Structural Audit was conducted by M/s P.T. Mase & Associates, which submitted its final report on 9 May 2024. Based on non-destructive tests, the auditor recommended repair of damaged areas. A separate report dated 6 July 2024 on chloride and sulphate content found that water from bore holes had chloride content on the higher side of Indian Standard limits and was unfit for use in construction or gardening without purification.

RSRDC Ltd. then prepared a consolidated note classifying the repair work into three levels of criticality, with a total estimated cost of Rs. 57.65 crore: high-intensity structural defects (beams, columns, slabs, joint gaps) at Rs. 10.39 crore; medium-intensity seepage and wall damage at Rs. 9.06 crore; and low-intensity defects such as settlements, cracks and paint deterioration at Rs. 25.09 crore. Each estimate carried an additional 10% for architectural finishing after rehabilitation. Repair work was taken up in phases by M/s Cembond Construction Private Limited, appointed by RSRDC Ltd.

Despite all of this, the Bench recorded that the RSRDC's Deputy General Manager, by a letter dated 16 July 2025, confirmed that the methodology adopted by the repair agency had been vetted by a senior professor from IIT Bombay and that no further approval was required. The Court was not satisfied that the situation had been adequately addressed.

IIT Bombay's Interim Report: Imminent Collapse Without Warning

The Project Director, RSRDC Ltd., was separately directed to undertake a “Structural Audit and Capacity Assessment” of the remaining untreated areas of the building through IIT Bombay. By a letter dated 20 July 2026, the Project Director forwarded IIT Bombay's interim presentation relating to a meeting held on 18 July 2026. The findings, summarised in the order, are grave:

• Deterioration is primarily due to reinforcement corrosion, carbonation, and localised chloride contamination, resulting in progressive deterioration of structural members.
• Active corrosion has been identified in several structural members. Approximately 40% of inspected areas are vulnerable to concrete spalling.
• UPV (Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity) test results indicate doubtful to poor quality concrete in many locations.
• Carbonation has reached the reinforcement cover depth, reducing alkalinity to a pH of approximately 9 to 10 and increasing corrosion risk.
• The building possesses all factors responsible for the initiation and acceleration of reinforcement corrosion: borderline to high chloride content, significant carbonation, and low pH, particularly in moist and humid areas.
• Critically, carbonation of concrete leads to reinforcement corrosion, and when humidity or moisture levels increase, the corrosion process accelerates, “inducing internal stresses that may result in the sudden debonding and falling of the concrete cover without any prior visible cracks or warning signs on the surface.”

IIT Bombay's interim precautionary recommendations were: cordon off the circular open portion of the Dome area; permit only dry mopping throughout the building; and immediately address all seepage and plumbing-related leakages. The Court recorded that the Dome area has since been cordoned off and the Project Director, RSRDC has been directed to submit a retrofitting plan.

A related FIR was registered on 12 November 2024 at Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur in connection with the fire incident. The Court noted that as of the date of this order, no action-taken report had been received.

The Bench's Assessment: Systemic Failure, Not Isolated Incidents

The Division Bench declined to treat the recurring collapses as unrelated events. The order states that the cumulative effect of the deficiencies demonstrates a systemic failure in the upkeep, monitoring and timely rectification of a building that houses the highest constitutional Court of the State. The Bench recorded its deep anguish and stern disapproval of the condition of the Dome, which it described as occupying a central and prominent position in the building. It found the consequences of a potential collapse would be catastrophic, involving potential loss of human lives and irreparable damage to the dignity and functioning of this constitutional Court.

The order was unsparing about inter-departmental inertia. The Court warned that any further delay, bureaucratic inertia, inter-departmental shifting of responsibility, or any attempt to minimise or downplay the structural threat would invite stringent orders, including directions for personal appearance and fixation of individual responsibility.

Directions Issued: Affidavits, 24×7 Monitoring, Safety Protocols

The Bench directed all named respondents to file comprehensive affidavits by 24 August 2026, addressing each of the following in specific terms:

• Status of all safety audits, structural health monitoring systems, load-bearing capacity assessments and residual life evaluations, with copies of all reports.
• The precise administrative, technical and contractual reasons why seepage, defective sanitary installations, inadequate fire-safety arrangements, drainage failures, progressive structural cracks and repeated roof collapses persisted despite prior knowledge.
• The exact role, contractual obligations, supervisory responsibility, financial accountability and quality control of RSRDC and every other agency, contractor or consultant involved in original construction, subsequent alterations, maintenance and ongoing works.
• Immediate interim measures already taken or proposed, including engineering interventions, their scientific basis, names of recommending experts, and timelines.
• A fully costed, time-bound, stage-wise and enforceable action plan for permanent strengthening, reconstruction or complete replacement of the Central Dome, with identification of the executing agency, budgetary allocation, source of funds, and names and designations of officers personally responsible at every stage.
• Names, designations, contact details and present postings of every RSRDC officer responsible for structural safety, maintenance, fire safety and overall upkeep since the building was constructed and occupied.

Pending further orders, the respondents are required to ensure round-the-clock structural health monitoring of the Central Dome and all critical structural elements by qualified structural engineers, with daily written reports including photographs and video submitted to the Registrar General and placed before the Court. A dedicated Control Room is to be established within the High Court premises, manned 24×7 by technical and administrative personnel. Clear, prominent and bilingual signage in Hindi and English, physical barriers, access-control protocols and security deployment are to be enforced strictly. A comprehensive safety and evacuation protocol is to be prepared within 48 hours and circulated to all stakeholders, with mock drills conducted within 72 hours.

The order further requires that photographic and video documentation of the present condition of the Central Dome and all critical areas be undertaken immediately and preserved for the Court's record. Any affidavit found to be incomplete, evasive, vague or designed to downplay the gravity of the situation may invite adverse orders including those for personal appearance and initiation of appropriate proceedings.

Amicus Curiae and Personal Appearance of Officials

The Bench constituted a team of lawyers to assist it as Amicus Curiae. The Presidents and General Secretaries of the Rajasthan High Court Lawyers' Association, Jodhpur and the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association, Jodhpur will be ex officio members. The Bench also requested seven Senior Advocates to assist: Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Mr. G.R. Punia, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Mr. Manish Shishodia, Mr. Vikas Balia, and Mr. Rajesh Joshi.

Notice has been accepted on behalf of all respondents. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot, accepted notice for respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 (State of Rajasthan, PWD, Law Department, and RSRDC). Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Additional Advocate General accepted notice for respondent No. 3 (Finance Department). Mr. Shyam Sunder Paliwal, Deputy Solicitor General accepted notice for respondent No. 5 (Union of India). Mr. B.L. Bhati, Additional Advocate General accepted notice for respondent No. 7 (Director General of Police). Dr. Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra, accepted notice for respondent No. 8 (Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court).

Outcome

The Division Bench registered the matter as a suo motu Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, titled Suo Motu: In Re: Structural integrity, safety and imminent peril to human lives arising from the Central Dome and allied defects in the Building of the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur. The Registry has been directed to furnish copies of the order to the Amicus Curiae and all respondents, and also to forward copies to IIT Bombay, IIT Jodhpur, and M/s P.T. Mase & Associates, Nagpur for immediate compliance and necessary action. The matter is listed for 24 August 2026, when the Chief Secretary of Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary (Finance), the Principal Secretary (PWD), the Managing Director of RSRDC, the Director General of Police, nominees of IIT Jodhpur and IIT Bombay, and a nominee of M/s P.T. Mase & Associates are required to remain personally present before the Court.