The Supreme Court of India recently expressed strong disapproval towards the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for what it described as “total callousness” and “suppression of facts” concerning the state of several protected monuments in Delhi. This rebuke came in the context of the case Rajeev Suri v. ASI & Ors., where the Court is overseeing matters related to the conservation of heritage sites.
In an order issued on August 24, a bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NK Singh highlighted inconsistencies between claims made by the MCD in an affidavit submitted on April 10 and photographic evidence published by the Hindustan Times on August 10 and the Times of India in late July. The MCD had asserted that certain monuments were free of encroachments and well-preserved, a claim contradicted by these media reports.
The Court stated, “We are unable to understand how such a stand could be taken before this Court by an organization like the MCD in the present proceedings.” It further remarked that the affidavit’s assertions amounted to a suppression of facts, exposing a severe lack of diligence on the MCD’s part.
Similar discrepancies were found in the claims made by the ASI, particularly regarding Atgah Khan’s Tomb, Gogabai’s Tomb, and Lal Chaubara. The Court considered issuing strict orders against the responsible officials but refrained after Additional Solicitor Generals SD Sanjay and Aishwarya Bhati, representing the MCD and ASI respectively, requested leniency.
However, the Court directed the Additional Commissioner of South Delhi and the Director General of the ASI to personally submit affidavits explaining why the Court should not take serious action against them. Furthermore, it instructed the Head of the Archaeological Department of the Delhi government to conduct a fresh inspection and submit a personally affirmed affidavit based on current conditions.
The Court warned that its patience was finite, stating, “If the situation continues and the facts stated therein are found to be incorrect, the Court may take direct action against the concerned officials without giving any further indulgence.”
This matter originated from a petition filed by Rajeev Suri, a resident of Defence Colony, seeking protection for the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, a 500-year-old Lodi-era tomb. The Supreme Court had previously ordered a CBI investigation into why the ASI abandoned its plans to declare the structure protected, directing the local residents’ association to return control of the site to the ASI. The scope of the case has since broadened to include the maintenance of various other heritage sites in Delhi.
On August 24, the bench also asked Court Commissioner Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan to consult with the journalists Paras Singh and Richi Verma, who reported the issues, to ascertain if they had additional information. The Court commended their work for exposing the “disturbing ground reality.”
Regarding the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, the Court emphasized that responsibility lies with the State Archaeological Department and the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC) to ensure smooth operations at the site. It cautioned that any failure in coordination might lead to scrutiny beyond this specific contract.
Finally, the Court instructed all parties to submit updated factual reports following site inspections conducted in the presence of the Court Commissioner or his team. It cautioned that any further misreporting or suppression of facts would be met with serious consequences. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on October 7.
