Supreme Court miffed after newspaper reports contradict claims by MCD, ASI about protected monuments

The Supreme Court recently pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over what it termed “total callousness” and “suppression of facts” about the condition of several protected monuments in Delhi [Rajeev Suri v. ASI & Ors.]. .In an order passed on August 24, a Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and NK Singh noted that an affidavit filed by the MCD on April 10 had claimed certain structures were free of encroachment and in a satisfactory state of conservation.However, photographs published in the Hindustan Times on August 10 and in the Times of India around July 26 showed a different picture.“We are unable to understand as to how such stand could be taken before this Court by an organisation like the MCD in the present proceedings,” the Court said.It said the affidavit’s claims amounted to suppression of facts on the part of the MCD.“There has been total callousness and rather suppression of facts on behalf of the MCD inasmuch as, the pictures reveal that with regard to certain structures which were referred to in the affidavit filed on behalf of the MCD on 10.04.2026 a categorical stand was taken that the said structures were free of encroachment and in a satisfactory state of conservation,” the Court said.The Court found a similar problem with the ASI. It noted that an affidavit filed by the ASI on April 7, concerning Atgah Khan’s Tomb, Gogabai’s Tomb and Lal Chaubara, was contradicted by the same newspaper photographs.The Court said it was inclined to pass strict orders against the officials concerned right away. It held back only after Additional Solicitor General(ASG) SD Sanjay, appearing for the MCD, and ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the ASI, requested the Court to refrain from passing adverse orders.The Court then directed the Additional Commissioner, South Delhi, and the Director General of the ASI to personally file affidavits explaining why the Court should not take serious note of their conduct.It also directed the Head of the Archaeological Department of the Delhi government to file a personally affirmed affidavit after a fresh inspection of the concerned monuments. However, while doing so, it warned that its leniency would not last. "If the situation continues and the facts stated therein are found to be incorrect, straight-away, the Court may take direct action against the concerned officials without giving any further indulgence," it said..The Court was hearing a long-running matter concerning the conservation of protected monuments in Delhi.The case began with a petition filed by Defence Colony resident Rajeev Suri seeking protection for a 500-year-old Lodi-era tomb called the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, which the Defence Colony Welfare Association had occupied and altered for years, using it as its own office. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered a CBI probe into how the ASI came to abandon its own recommendation to declare the structure as protected. It had also directed the RWA to hand back possession of the site to ASI.Since then, the Court has expanded the case to cover the upkeep of several other heritage sites across Delhi..Supreme Court questions neglect of heritage monuments in Delhi, warns police officers of personal liability.In its latest order of August 24, the bench asked the Court Commissioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, to reach out to the two journalists behind the reports - Paras Singh of the Hindustan Times and Richi Verma of the Times of India. It asked Sankaranarayanan to check whether they or their colleagues held further relevant information. It praised their reporting for bringing what it called “disturbing ground reality” into the public domain.On the Gumti of Shaikh Ali itself, the Court held that it was primarily the State Archaeological Department and the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation’s (DTTDC) job to ensure the work there went smoothly. It warned that poor coordination here could invite scrutiny well beyond this one contract.“If this Court finds that they are not properly monitoring the coordination of the work, the Court may go into the aspect of allotment/finalisation of contracts by these two organisations and also fix accountability, both individual and organisational, which may not be restricted to the present transaction only,” the Court said..All parties have been directed to file fresh factual reports, based on site inspections carried out in the presence of the Court Commissioner or a member of his team. The Court warned that any further suppression or misreporting of facts would carry serious consequences..The matter will be heard next on October 7. .[Read Order]