The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to the ASI for failing to file a status report on 173 protected heritage sites in Delhi. The ASI Director General has been summoned to appear personally before the Court on the next hearing.
The Supreme Court of India has issued a contempt notice to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for failing to submit a status report on the conservation and maintenance of 173 protected heritage sites in Delhi. The Court has also directed the Director General of ASI to personally appear before the Court on the next date of hearing.
In an order dated March 16, which was uploaded recently, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N. Kotiswar Singh expressed serious concern over ASI’s failure to comply with earlier directions of the Court.
The bench said,
“Notice is issued to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India to showcause, as to why, the court may not initiate proceedings for contempt against him. He shall be personally present before the court on the next date of listing along with his show-cause.”
This action was taken after the Supreme Court had earlier passed an order in February directing several authorities responsible for heritage sites in Delhi to submit detailed status reports. These reports were to include details such as the location of monuments, their conservation status, maintenance details, geo-mapping information, and photographs.
As per a 2021 report by INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage), Delhi has more than 1,100 notified heritage sites and structures. Out of these, 173 monuments are under the direct supervision of ASI, while the remaining monuments are managed by the Delhi Archaeology Department, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
The Supreme Court had taken this INTACH report on record and on February 2 directed all concerned authorities to submit complete information about the heritage sites under their control. However, when the matter was heard on March 16, all authorities except ASI had submitted their responses.
Taking serious note of this non-compliance, the Court said,
“The court takes strong exception to the deliberate violation of the order of this court…the number of monuments which are coming under the purview of ASI are 173. However, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of ASI,”
and listed the matter for further hearing on April 13.
The Court was assisted in the matter by amicus curiae and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who presented a summary of the reports filed by various authorities and pointed out gaps and deficiencies in compliance with the Court’s February 2 order.
The reports submitted by the Delhi Government, MCD, and NDMC showed that inspection work had started but was still incomplete. The Delhi Government had inspected 19 sites under its control but failed to provide the latest photographs.
The MCD had identified 85 Grade-I heritage structures, but only 62 had been surveyed. The civic body also failed to provide details regarding geo-mapping, involvement of local communities, and budget constraints.
The Supreme Court then made it clear that proper and complete information must be submitted for each monument. The bench said,
“We make it clear that with regard to every monument, the location and geo-mapping along with the up-to-date photographs shall mandatorily be placed on record besides the details on all other issues indicated in our previous order of February 2.”
The Court also reviewed the status report filed by NDMC. It was informed that NDMC has 54 identified heritage sites but had surveyed only two sites so far. Taking note of this slow progress, the Court directed NDMC to file a detailed affidavit explaining how it plans to supervise and coordinate the conservation work.
The Court stated,
“We direct the NDMC to file a further affidavit giving details and the scheme under which they shall discharge their onus of overall supervision and coordination among all the other wings to ensure that the monuments are kept in the manner required.”
The Supreme Court further said that once all authorities submit complete information, the Court will identify specific heritage sites that need urgent conservation and restoration. For this purpose, the Court has called heritage conservator and historian Swapna Liddle to assist the Court in identifying priority monuments. She has been asked to be present at the next hearing.
This entire issue started from a case filed by Rajeev Suri regarding encroachment on the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, a Lodhi-era monument located in Defence Colony, Delhi. Residents had encroached upon the monument and were operating an RWA office from inside the 17th century structure.
Due to the intervention of the Supreme Court, the encroachment was removed, the monument was restored, and it was granted the status of a protected monument under the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004.
After this, Rajeev Suri filed another application through his lawyer, senior advocate Shikhil Suri, highlighting the urgent need to protect and conserve other heritage structures across Delhi. This application brought the detailed INTACH report before the Supreme Court.
The INTACH report consists of seven volumes covering different heritage zones of Delhi. Three volumes cover the Walled City areas including Jama Masjid, Red Fort, and structures near Begum Bagh, Daryaganj, Kashmere Gate, and Mori Gate. The fourth volume covers heritage buildings in the Outer Walled City including Sadar Bazar, Pahar Ganj, and Ajmeri Gate.
The fifth volume covers Lutyens’ Delhi, including areas such as Nizamuddin, India Gate, Jantar Mantar, Humayun’s Tomb, and Lodhi Gardens. The sixth and seventh volumes cover heritage structures in South Delhi including Tughlaqabad, Sultan Garhi, Lado Sarai, Sultanpur, and Mehrauli.
The report also classifies heritage structures based on historical periods such as pre-Mughal period (before 1526), Mughal period (1526 to early 18th century), late Mughal period (early 18th century to 1857), early Colonial period (1857 to early 20th century), and late Colonial period (early 20th century to 1947).
This case is important because it highlights the poor condition and lack of proper conservation of many heritage monuments in Delhi and shows that the Supreme Court is now closely monitoring the protection, restoration, and maintenance of historical structures in the national capital.
The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for April 13, where the ASI Director General has been directed to appear personally and explain the failure to comply with the Court’s earlier order.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Sealing Mosque
