Courts Supreme Court
Supreme Court criticizes MCD, ASI for 'callousness' over heritage structure claims
The case involves a dispute over the preservation of heritage structures in Delhi, where the Court addressed contradictions between official affidavits filed by the MCD and ASI and newspaper reports showing damage or encroachment.
The Court directed fresh inspections and show-cause notices to officials regarding these discrepancies.
Who it concerns: Petitioner: Rajeev Suri; Respondents: Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) & Ors.; Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.
What the court decided
- Directed the Additional Commissioner, South Delhi (MCD), Director General of ASI, and Head of the Archaeological Department (NCT Delhi) to file personal show-cause affidavits after fresh site inspections.
- Ordered the two contractors working on horticulture and civil works to coordinate and follow instructions from the Court Commissioner.
- Directed the Department of Archaeology to ensure upkeep and cleanliness of the toilet complex at the site.
- Substituted Respondent No. 13 as 'Vidya Bal Vihar' and ordered fresh notice and a report from ASI regarding Kharbooze ka Gumbad and Lal Gumbad.
- Required all parties to file revised factual reports based on fresh site inspections conducted in the presence of the Court Commissioner.
- Ordered the authority concerned to file a detailed affidavit regarding the settlement with the Aga Khan Trust for Sunder Nursery, including audit reports.
- Listed the matter for the next hearing on 07.10.2026 at 02:00 p.m.
Also in the document
- The Court noted 'total callousness and rather suppression of facts' by the MCD and ASI based on newspaper photographs contradicting their affidavits.
- The Court refrained from passing immediate strict orders against officials but warned of direct action if incorrect facts continue to be reported.
- The Court requested the Court Commissioner to contact journalists from Hindustan Times and Times of India for additional information.
How this was written
An AI model running on our own computer read the government document and wrote this summary. No person has checked it.
✓ Figures checked. Every number in this summary was found in the document by an automated check.
That check compares numbers only. It cannot confirm that the wording says what the document says — so the original document is always the authority.
The original document
Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments
Court order · 1 Sep 2026
Read it here
Discussion
No one has discussed this document yet.