The Supreme Court of India has ordered the top leaders of the Archaeological Survey of India and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to personally appear before the bench, severely reprimanding both authorities for concealing facts and displaying total callousness toward the preservation of historical monuments in the national capital.
Mandatory Court Appearance Ordered for October 7
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N Kotiswar Singh issued the directives on Monday while hearing an application concerning the state of heritage sites in Delhi. The court mandated the personal appearance of the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Additional Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Both officials must submit affidavits showing cause as to why appropriate action should not be taken against their agencies for their conduct. The apex court has set the next hearing in the matter for October 7.
Inspection Reveals Missing Structure and Discrepancies
The court took serious note of the situation after media reports were presented highlighting extensive encroachment and severe deterioration at Lodhi-era tombs located in south Delhi’s Zamrudpur area. The reports were brought to the bench’s attention through an application filed by Delhi resident Rajeev Suri, whose public interest litigation has served as the basis for ongoing judicial monitoring of Delhi’s heritage conservation.
A team of court-appointed commissioners—consisting of senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocates Nipun Saxena and Vishal Sinha—informed the bench that five Grade-I heritage structures under MCD control exist in the Zamrudpur area. However, during their assessment, the commissioners discovered that one of the five historic buildings could not be traced.
Contradictions in Civic Body Submissions
The findings directly challenged a status report previously submitted by the MCD on April 10. In that filing, the civic body reported that a survey of the five Zamrudpur tombs found one structure in satisfactory condition, while three others suffered from littering and encroachment.
Addressing the contradiction between the MCD’s official submissions and the actual ground reality, the bench observed that the civic body had engaged in a clear suppression of facts, particularly after taking a firm stance earlier that the heritage structures were free from unauthorized occupation.
