Supreme Court considers deliberation on monitoring of preservation of Delhi's heritage sites

The Supreme Court expressed its desire to oversee the maintenance and protection of heritage and archaeological sites in Delhi on Friday, considering the long-standing negligence by legal institutions. The comment was made during the hearing of a case related to the illegal occupation of the Lodhi-era Sheikh Ali 'Gumti', a nearly 500-year-old archaeological monument of significance.

The Gumti was illegally occupied by the Defence Colony Welfare Association (DCWA), while the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) had established an unauthorized office and parking facility at the site. The Supreme Court has issued several orders over the past year to remove encroachments and is closely monitoring the restoration efforts.

When the case was heard on January 13, a bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N.K. Singh noted that the restoration work by the concerned parties was carried out "in the right spirit". The bench approved the final restoration plan, stating it would take about four months to complete.

The court was informed that the petitioner, Rajeev Suri, had filed an application seeking to expand the scope of the action to include other heritage sites in Delhi, which are under the management of various legal institutions, including the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which allegedly failed to properly maintain these sites.

The application alleged that conservation efforts in the capital have been "ad-hoc and piecemeal". The court was also told that several heritage monuments are neglected and unprotected, and the existing lists of such sites are over a decade old. The petitioner sought directions for a survey to be conducted within a stipulated timeframe to assess the current condition of these properties.

The court-appointed commissioner, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, presented the application in court along with senior advocate Shikhil Shiv Suri. According to the data presented, the ASI has 174 protected sites in Delhi, the Delhi government has 554, the MCD has 767, and the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) has around 20 heritage properties.

In the absence of fresh and consolidated information, the bench directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), the Delhi Cantonment Board, and the CPWD to be impleaded as parties. Notices have also been issued to these newly added parties.

The court has issued several orders since January 21, 2025, directing the DCWA to hand over the possession of Gumti to the Land and Development Office (L&DO) of the Ministry of Urban Affairs. The court also ordered the MCD to vacate the illegally occupied premises and imposed a fine of Rs 4 million on the DCWA for the restoration of the monument.

On May 14, the court was informed that the DCWA had peacefully handed over the possession to the Land and Development Office. However, it was alleged that the MCD had vacated the premises in a dilapidated condition, with garbage, broken walls, and no electricity.

Subsequently, on July 23, the court directed the MCD to completely clean up the premises and submit an operational report, and on July 30, it ordered the park surrounding the Gumti to be restored to its original condition.

The action was initiated following an application by Rajeev Suri under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, seeking protection of the monument. In August 2024, the court had ordered a preliminary investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the failure of the ASI and the central government to protect the site.

The investigation revealed the DCWA's illegal occupation and unauthorized structural changes. The Supreme Court appointed INTACH (Delhi Chapter) former convener and heritage expert, Swapna Liddle, on November 14, 2024, to assess the damage caused to the structure and suggest restoration measures.

The CBI investigation found that the Gumti was used by the DCWA as an office for nearly six decades, during which several unauthorized changes were made, including the construction of a washroom, installation of amenities, false ceiling, and parking shed. The case is still under consideration by the court.