SC perturbed over ASI volte-face on refusing protection to Lodhi-era tomb

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri seeking orders from the court to declare the structure a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the silence of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in protecting a Lodhi-era monument in Delhi’s Defence Colony, with a report prepared by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) disclosing a series of inactions by the body and the neighbourhood’s resident welfare association (RWA) which used the 15th century “Gumti of Shaikh Ali” as its office.

The RWA informed the court that they had “been there for decades”, a submission that irked the bench. (RAJ K RAJ /HT PHOTO)

A bench headed by justice Sudhanshu Dhulia said, “It seems the ASI has gone against its own mandate to protect ancient monuments. How can you allow such a thing to happen to a 700-year-old Lodhi-era tomb?”

The court was hearing a petition filed by a Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri seeking orders from the court to declare the structure a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act). He approached the top court after the Delhi high court refused to allow his plea in February 2019.

CBI, which was brought into the picture by an order of the court this August, gave its report in a sealed cover detailing the circumstances under which the “Gumti” came to be occupied by the RWA as its office in the 1960s. Since then, the RWA has made several alterations in the structure, including installing a false ceiling inside the monument. It further recorded that in 2004, ASI issued a notification intending to declare the structure as a protected monument but dropped the plan in the face of objections from the RWA. In 2008, the proposal for declaring the structure a protected monument was dropped by the central government.

The RWA informed the court that they had “been there for decades”, a submission that irked the bench.

“How dare you enter it? What kind of argument is this. It cannot be allowed,” said justice Dhulia.

“In open court we will direct to evict you if needed,” he said.

The counsel then argued that if the RWA would not have occupied the building, “anti-social elements will take over”. This further incensed the judges.

“Don’t speak like colonial rulers, like, if we had not come to India, what would have happened,” said justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah. 

The bench, also comprising justice Amanullah, said: “We are perturbed by the way ASI has acted. What kind of authority are you? You have been silent for 60 years.” Commenting on the ASI proposal to first declare the monument protected, and then step back on learning that it was occupied, the bench remarked, “This is a serious issue. You have done a volte face only because there are windows and tables and a false ceiling. Enough of this. We are now going to haul up people.”

The court directed a copy of the CBI report to be shared with the petitioner represented by senior advocate Shikhil Suri. Additional solicitor general (ASG) Raja Thakare, appearing for CBI, sought further time till November 30 to submit a final report. The court said that it would appoint an expert to inspect the building and verify the extent of damage caused to it and the plan for its restoration. Already, by an order passed on March 12 this year, the court has stopped further changes to the Gumti. The court directed the matter to be heard again on January 21.

Complimenting the petitioner for taking forward the issue from the high court to the Supreme Court without fearing adverse consequences, the bench pulled up the RWA for illegally occupying the building. “You have been occupying that place and running your hukumat (rule) sitting in the AC-fitted office. Will you not even pay any rent?”

The petition pointed out that the “Gumti” finds mention in the survey of monuments of Delhi, carried out in 1920s by Maulvi Zafar Hasan, the then deputy superintending archaeologist, published in 1926 by ASI as Last of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments.

Reference to this structure is also provided in a 1999 publication of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (Intach). According to this record, the Gumti is an octagonal tomb having arched opening and domical superstructure having pointed arch designs on all eight sides of the wall. While only one side is open, the rest of the arches have been closed with bricks. A circular drum supports the dome and an inverted lotus structure is present above the dome.

The top court, while inducting CBI into the matter, wanted to know the entire history of the structure and in what circumstances it came to be occupied, who gave directions, and the acts of omission and commission by the officers of ASI in this regard.

Going through the report, the bench said, “The report discloses a lot about the actions or inactions on part of ASI as well as the RWA among others. CBI is not an expert body on archaeological and historical work, but it has done good work giving sequence of events that led to the unauthorised occupation of a building of archaeological importance.”

The court also hinted that the CBI report mentioned the role of a former minister at the centre at whose assurance the RWA continued with the unauthorised occupation of the structure. “This will have larger repercussions,” the bench said.

While dismissing Suri’s petition in 2019, the Delhi high court had noted the stand taken by Centre that due to alterations made by RWA, the structure had lost its originality and therefore could not be declared a monument of national importance.

Maj (retd) Ranjeet Singh, president of the Defence Colony RWA, said, “We have been there for over 60 years. The Supreme Court is supreme and we respect it. We will abide by whatever judgment the court passes in the next hearing.”