SC orders protection of Delhi heritage sites, fixes accountability on police

There are 48 monuments in Delhi which have to be notified as protected by the Delhi government but have not been done since 2015, the court was told

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Delhi Police to secure all protected monuments and heritage sites in the capital from encroachment and vandalism, underlining the urgent need to preserve these structures.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Delhi resident Rajeev Suri, seeking protection of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali (above) in Defence Colony. (HT Archive)

Acting on a report filed by conservationist and historian Swapna Liddle, which flagged these urgent concerns, a bench of justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N Kotiswar Singh directed the police to act, holding the police commissioner personally liable for ensuring compliance with its orders.

The court said, “We direct the commissioner of police, Delhi, to instruct all local station house officers (SHOs) of areas either protected or falling under category of heritage or places of historical importance to be protected from encroachment or threat of vandalism.”

The court was hearing a petition filed by Delhi resident Rajeev Suri, seeking protection of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali in Defence Colony. Subsequently, on his application, the court expanded the scope of the plea to examine the preservation status of all heritage structures in Delhi under the supervision of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the Delhi government’s archaeology department, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC).

On Monday, the court examined Liddle’s report, which included photographs showing structures coming up within the 100-metre prohibited area of protected monuments in Mehrauli. She also cited instances of vandalism at several sites.

“We intend to do something urgently to preserve these sites and structures,” the court said, adding, “If we find our order is not complied with, the commissioner of police, Delhi, and the concerned deputy commissioner of police shall be personally liable.”

Liddle also flagged the need for the Delhi government to notify several structures being conserved by its archaeology department as “protected monuments”. Senior advocate Shikhil Suri, appearing for the petitioner, said, “There are 48 monuments in Delhi which have to be notified as protected by the Delhi government but have not been done since 2015.”

Her report cited the example of the 1397 monument ‘Tarbooze ka Gumbad’, currently located within a school in south Delhi. It also flagged three Mughal-era structures at the Delhi Golf Club that are in a dilapidated state.

Posting the matter for May 11, the court directed the NDMC chairperson to be present and explain why supervision and maintenance of the three Mughal-era structures at the Delhi Golf Club (DGC) had not been ensured.

“We find the structures inside golf club are totally neglected. NDMC has chosen to turn a blind eye by not maintaining supervision and vigilance to ensure DGC discharges obligation to fully maintain the structures. We find such conduct on part of NDMC to be a gross case of negligence,” the bench observed.

The NDMC’s counsel pointed out that the land had been leased to the club. “Once you give it, you sleep over it and do not care about it. The state, it seems, does not understand the heritage value of these structures. They are completely dilapidated and vegetation is growing over them,” the bench remarked.

As regards the structure located within a school in Sadhana Vihar, the court directed the Delhi government to explain the circumstances under which the monument became part of the school premises. “We are surprised how in the first place, such sites have been given to private entities… let the government explain what stipulations cover the maintenance of such structures,” the order said.

In her report, Liddle said, “Over the years, the Delhi government has actually conserved a large number of monuments, but failed to extend protection to sites through formal notification. There are many important monuments in Delhi that are inadequately protected. The government must urgently complete the formalities of notification.”

She added that several ‘public’ heritage sites are protected under the heritage clause of the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, and notified by the NDMC and the MCD. “There are hundreds of buildings in this category, which points in fact to the positive approach to heritage that has been followed in Delhi with regard to heritage legislation,” she said, urging the court to consider preservation of buildings of historical or architectural significance listed as ‘public’.

In February, the court was shown a report by INTACH documenting heritage sites in Delhi. It had then directed all concerned agencies to provide monument-wise details, including conservation status, location and geo-mapping, recent photographs, ownership (including pending litigation), fencing and boundary demarcation, maintenance status, existence of encroachments, budgetary constraints, and local community involvement, among other aspects.

The INTACH report of 2021 documents over 1,100 notified heritage sites and structures in Delhi, spanning periods from pre-Mughal to late colonial.

While 173 of these sites are under the direct supervision and management of the ASI, the rest fall under the control of the Delhi government, MCD, and NDMC.