Pulling up the Archaeological Survey of India over the neglect of heritage structures in the capital, the Supreme Court said the agency had lost credibility after a Lodhi-era monument in Delhi was found being used as a cow shed and dumping yard, and summoned the heads of the departments concerned to appear in person at the next hearing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday lambasted the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) over the condition of Delhi’s heritage monuments, after court-appointed commissioners placed material showing that a Lodhi-era monument in the Zamrudpur area was being used as a cow shed and a dumping ground, and directed senior officials of the Centre and the Delhi authorities to appear in person at the next hearing [Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India].
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter on October 7, 2026, in proceedings that began with the preservation of the Lodhi-era Shaikh Ali Gumti and have since widened to cover other protected and heritage structures in Delhi.
The reports before the Court
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the Court Commissioner, placed before the Bench newspaper reports and the commissioners’ findings on the state of several monuments. According to those reports, the Lodhi-era tombs at Zamrudpur in south Delhi were being used as a cow shed and a dumping ground. The Bench also took up the Lal Mahal in Nizamuddin, described as a 13th-century palace, where the commissioners reported partial demolition and encroachment by private builders and said their team had been refused entry on the ground that the property is private. The Bench asked whether the land is private or public and what the MCD’s records show.
The matter had earlier come up in August, when the Bench criticised the MCD for what it called “total callousness and suppression of facts” and directed the personal presence of senior officers of the MCD and the ASI.
What the Bench said
The Bench questioned the MCD’s capacity to look after monuments and was sharply critical of the ASI, remarking that the agency had lost credibility. It told the MCD’s counsel that the response was casual and that the corporation did not seem bothered about its own areas. Counsel for the MCD said the corporation could not find that the land was under it. The Bench also asked for the names of the three MCD officers who filed an affidavit without knowing whether the area fell within the corporation’s jurisdiction, remarking that they ought to be suspended.
The Bench recorded an “absolute lack of cohesion between various government bodies/ departments” and said the status report, ownership details and settlement records had not been furnished. It observed that strict orders were called for, but, as a last indulgence, did not pass them for now. The ASI told the Court that it maintains over 4,000 monuments across the country and has sought more staff from the government.
The directions
The Court impleaded the Department of History and Culture, Government of India, through its Secretary, and asked the departments concerned to form a team for coordination. The MCD is to file a fresh affidavit on the question of land ownership, and the ASI’s requisition to the government for additional staff is to be placed on record. On the Delhi Golf Club issue, the Bench was unhappy with the affidavit filed and directed a fresh affidavit explaining the applicable rules.
The Secretary of the Ministry of Culture, the Commissioners of the MCD and the New Delhi Municipal Council, the Secretary of the Delhi Department of Archaeology, the Director General of the ASI, the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority and the Director General of the CPWD must appear personally at the next hearing, which is listed for next week, without sending nominees.
Why the order matters
The hearing shows the Supreme Court continuing to supervise the upkeep of Delhi’s protected and heritage structures directly, rather than leaving it to the agencies that are statutorily responsible. By requiring the heads of the Centre’s and the capital’s agencies to appear in person, with no nominees, the Bench is pressing for accountability at the top and for a single, coordinated account of who owns, controls and maintains each site.
The Court’s remark about the ASI’s credibility, and its finding of a lack of cohesion among departments, indicate that further, stricter directions may follow if the fresh affidavits do not explain the ownership and maintenance gaps. No final findings have been recorded against any official so far.
Case Title: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 7, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Court Commissioner; Senior Advocate SD Sanjay for the MCD; the Director General of the ASI was present in person