Delhi High Court Summons Central Government Over Delhi Gymkhana Club Eviction
In a recent development, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued summons regarding lawsuits filed by members and employees of the Delhi Gymkhana Club. They are contesting the Central Government’s directive that the club vacates its 27.3-acre premises in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5. However, Justice Avneesh Jhingan refrained from issuing interim orders against the government’s May 22 mandate. During the hearing, the government assured that eviction proceedings would only occur after providing due notice.
Government’s Eviction Plan Under Scrutiny
Justice Avneesh Jhingan noted the issue was “premature and presumptive,” emphasizing there was nothing on record to indicate actions under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. He highlighted that the plaintiffs could seek remedies in accordance with the law if necessary. The government’s statement reassured that any potential eviction would be preceded by a prior notice, countering concerns about the club’s governing body potentially relinquishing club possession.
Lawsuits Challenge Government’s Order
The High Court is addressing two suits, one by Vijay Khurana, a long-term club member, and another by the Staff Welfare Association of the Delhi Gymkhana Club. These suits oppose the Central Government’s order to vacate the premises by June 5. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the club’s last elected body, also sought to present a petition, stressing the urgency to argue alongside the ongoing cases.
Legal Arguments and Government’s Stand
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued for the government, referencing Clause 4 of the lease, which outlines steps for lease determination, including compensation, potentially monetary or via alternate land. He affirmed that actions would align with legal procedures, denying any intention to forcibly vacate the premises.
Representing Khurana, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out the lack of compensation and questioned the legality of government actions, arguing that the appointed nominees now govern the club, replacing the elected committee.
More Read
Compensation and Constitutional Concerns
Singhvi asserted that the government’s actions contradicted Article 14 of the Constitution, querying the lack of compensation and the validity of actions under an outdated clause. Sibal supported this view, emphasizing the need for notice before any eviction.
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing the Staff Welfare Association, expressed concerns over potential actions by government-appointed nominees that could undermine the club’s interests.
Legal Precedents and Judicial Queries
The court questioned the possibility of challenging Clause 4’s constitutionality within the current suit. Sibal argued for a legal interpretation that prevents the government from entering without proper justification and notice.
More Read
The land, leased perpetually to the club since 1928, allows government re-entry for public purposes per Clause 4. In 2022, proceedings initiated by the Centre before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) led to appointing 15 government-nominated members to manage the club, a decision upheld by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
Concerns Over Arbitrary Government Action
Khurana’s plea seeks to restrain the government from revoking the club’s perpetual leasehold rights and forcibly dispossessing members from the historic premises. The government’s May 22 order, citing public security needs near high-security zones, has been criticized for lacking specificity and compensation, allegedly violating Article 300A of the Constitution.
