The Supreme Court on Tuesday officially disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed over 20 years ago that sought the restoration and conservation of the Red Fort, a prominent 17th-century Mughal-era monument. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, acknowledged that the expert panel formed for this purpose has largely fulfilled the court’s directives.
The PIL was initiated in 2003 by petitioner Rajeev Sethi, who argued that the conservation efforts at the Red Fort did not meet international standards. In response, the Supreme Court had established a nine-member expert panel in August 2004, led by the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), to oversee the conservation process.
Justice Surya Kant stated, “Since then, 20 years have passed and we have no reason to believe that the expert committee has not complied with the directions of the court… if anything has not been done or if anything has been left out, the petitioner has the liberty to move the court with a fresh petition.”
In 2004, the court not only constituted the panel but also issued comprehensive guidelines to ensure that the conservation management plan adhered to internationally accepted principles. The panel was tasked with taking appropriate steps for the monument’s conservation and restoration.
Further involvement included the appointment of senior advocate Harish Salve as amicus curiae in November 2003. Salve was tasked with assisting the court in the matter and inspecting the renovation and restoration work carried out by the ASI. He was also responsible for verifying the petitioner’s allegations regarding the quality of the conservation efforts.
The court had directed Salve to visit the Red Fort along with then Solicitor General Kirit Raval and petitioner’s advocate Kapil Sibal, and to furnish a report on their findings.
Advocate Bina Madhavan, representing Sethi, was informed by the bench that after more than two decades since the PIL’s inception and following substantial compliance with the issued directions, there was no justification for keeping the petition active.
