AAP also affirmed in the Supreme Court, its understanding of the importance of judicial infrastructure for the well-being of Delhi’s residents and expressed no objections to moving its State Unit Office to a suitable alternative location.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has come forward with a clarification regarding the land on which their party office stands. Amidst allegations of land encroachment, the AAP has firmly stated to the Supreme Court that the land was, in fact, officially allotted to them in 2015, negating any claims of unlawful occupation.
ALSO READ: Electoral Bonds Unconstitutional | Supreme Court Rejects Anonymous Political Donations
The controversy surfaced when the Supreme Court reprimanded the AAP over allegations of encroaching on land designated for judiciary purposes in Delhi. In a detailed response, the AAP, through its legal representatives, informed the apex court that the land in question was not encroached upon but was allotted to the party back in 2015. This statement comes as a direct rebuttal to the accusations that have been levied against the party, suggesting a misunderstanding or miscommunication regarding the land’s allocation and its current use.
“Far from being an instance of ‘encroachment’, the Subject Premises were officially allotted to the Applicant by the Government of NCT of Delhi (‘GNCTD’) on 31.12.2015 for its State Unit Office. This was strictly in accordance with the Applicant’s entitlement as (at that time) a State Party under the Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2015,”
-the application by AAP said.
Further, it was highlighted that a notice of cancellation of the said allotment was set aside by the Delhi High Court by an order dated August 23, 2017.
Further elaborating on their stance, the AAP’s lawyers conveyed the party’s readiness to relocate from the current premises. However, they emphasized the need for an alternative site to be provided for constructing a new office, in line with the party’s status as a national entity. This willingness to vacate the premises underscores the AAP’s respect for the law and its institutions, albeit with the practical consideration of requiring a base for its operations, especially with the Lok Sabha elections on the horizon.
“As of now, the applicant has been allotted office space (i.e. the Subject Premises) only for its Delhi State Unit…. there is no question of the applicant ‘encroaching’ on a space that was duly allotted to it in 2015 and that has been in its possession since then. The subject premises had been in the applicant’s occupation long before it was earmarked for extending the Rouse Avenue Court Complex,”
-the application by AAP stated.
The counsel representing the AAP underscored the logistical challenges that would arise from an immediate evacuation of the office, highlighting the absence of an alternative location for their party office as a significant concern. This point was raised during a hearing where Chief Justice of India (CIJ) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had taken note of the issue while dealing with a case concerning judicial infrastructure across the country.
The Chief Justice directed key officials from the Delhi government, including the Chief Secretary, Public Works Secretary, and Finance Secretary, to convene with the Registrar General of the High Court. The aim of this meeting is to find a resolution before the next court hearing, demonstrating the judiciary’s proactive approach to resolving the matter amicably.
The Supreme Court’s initial reaction to the allegations against the AAP was one of shock and displeasure. The land, originally earmarked for the Delhi High Court’s expansion to enhance its infrastructure, seemed to have been occupied by the AAP, leading to the court questioning the rationale behind such an allocation.
“How can a political party sit tight on that land? What will the High Court use it for? Only for the public and citizens. Why was the land allotted to the High Court then?”
-questioned the three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, during the last hearing.
This incident has sparked a broader discussion on the allocation and use of public land, especially in the context of the needs of governmental and judicial institutions versus those of political entities. The AAP’s response to the Supreme Court not only seeks to clarify their position but also opens the door for a dialogue on how such matters are handled, ensuring transparency and fairness in the use of public resources.
As the situation unfolds, the focus remains on the upcoming meeting between Delhi government officials and the judiciary, which could pave the way for a solution that respects both the legal framework and the practical needs of the AAP. With the Lok Sabha elections approaching, the resolution of this issue will be keenly watched by all stakeholders, reflecting the delicate balance between governance, judiciary, and political entities in the democratic fabric of India.
CASE TITLE-
Malik Mazhar Sultan vs Union of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
