The Supreme Court has clarified that individual members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club are entitled to pursue independent legal proceedings challenging the Union government’s decision to repossess the club’s 27.3-acre prime estate in the capital.
A bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued the clarification following an oral mentioning by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared on behalf of the club’s members. Addressing the bench, Singh submitted that the members’ writ petitions remained pending before the Delhi High Court, where an objection had been raised regarding their locus standi, asserting that only the club as a corporate entity, and not its individual members, had the legal right to file suit.
In response, Chief Justice Kant modified an earlier order dated September 15, 2026, clarifying that the petitioners are permitted to initiate independent proceedings before the High Court.
Centre Invokes Lease Clause for Defence Needs
The underlying legal conflict centres on a resumption order issued by the Land and Development Office under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. The directive ordered the club to vacate and hand over its 27.3-acre property on Safdarjung Road in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5, 2026.
To execute the takeover, the Union government invoked Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed originally granted to the Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited. The provision permits re-entry and termination of the lease if the land is required for a public purpose.
The Centre stated that the parcel is situated within a strategically sensitive zone of New Delhi and is urgently required to strengthen defence infrastructure, support integrated governance facilities, and serve broader national security requirements. Under the order, the entire parcel—including all built structures, lawns, and fixtures—is slated to vest in the President of India through the Land and Development Office.
Club Cites Livelihoods and Ongoing Restructuring
The Delhi Gymkhana Club moved the Delhi High Court to contest the repossession, warning that an abrupt eviction would destabilize the historic establishment and affect around 14,000 members alongside more than 500 workers who rely on the facility for their livelihood.
The club noted that it is currently being administered by a transitional General Committee nominated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under directions from the National Company Law Tribunal. Representatives stated that this interim body has successfully stabilized the club’s financial and administrative operations following previous regulatory actions, and is functioning pending the election of a regular governing board.
In representations to authorities, the management urged the government to halt any immediate dislocation while legal disputes remain unresolved. The club further submitted that should relocation become unavoidable, the Centre should allocate an alternative parcel of land to preserve the institution’s continuity.
High Court Scrutinises Estate Officer Jurisdiction
The dispute has witnessed multiple hearings before the Delhi High Court. On May 26, the court declined to issue an interim stay against the eviction order after the central government gave assurances that possession would not be assumed except through established legal processes.
More recently, a bench led by Justice Avneesh Jhingan suggested that the Estate Officer functioning under the Public Premises legislation should determine whether eviction proceedings should continue while jurisdictional questions remain pending before the judiciary. The bench adjourned the matter to allow counsel for the club’s members to seek instructions on whether they would consent to the Estate Officer addressing the jurisdictional objections first.
Appearing for the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that any participation before the Estate Officer would remain strictly without prejudice to their core challenge regarding the officer’s jurisdiction. Singhvi also pointed out that the pending civil suit does not directly cover the statutory proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act.
