The Supreme Court has pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for allegedly placing incorrect or misleading facts about the condition and encroachment status of several heritage structures before the court.

A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh condemned the “total callousness” and “suppression of facts” on the part of the MCD after photographs published in the reports of The Hindustan Times and The Times of India newspapers appeared to contradict claims made by the civic body in an affidavit filed before the court.

The Court has been monitoring the preservation and upkeep of heritage monuments in Delhi in the proceedings arising out of a 2019 judgment of the Delhi High Court. Although the case initially concerned the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, the Court expanded the proceedings to cover the entire heritage sites in Delhi.

Taking note of an application filed by the petitioner Rajeev Suri placing photographs from news reports on record, the Court found a stark contrast between the sworn stand taken by the authorities and the ground reality.

Perusing an affidavit filed by the MCD, which had claimed certain monument structures were free of encroachment and in a satisfactory state of conservation, the bench observed that, “it is clear that 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 photographs which have been printed in the Daily Hindustan Times Newspaper dated 10.08.2026 and in the Daily Times of India Newspaper, which is probably dated 26.07.2026 indicate a completely different picture to the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the MCD. We are unable to understand how such a stand could be taken before this Court by an organisation like the MCD.”

The Court noted “similar conduct” on the part of the ASI with respect to Atgah Khan's Tomb, Gogabai's Tomb, and Lal Chaubara, where the ASI's affidavit was “belied by the photographs” published in the same two newspapers.

Calling the discrepancies serious, the bench directed personal appearance and the filing of personal show-cause by affidavits to be filed by the Additional Commissioner (South Delhi, MCD), and the Director General of the ASI, explaining why the Court should not take serious note of such conduct. The Head of the Archaeological Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, has also been directed to file a personally affirmed affidavit. The Court directed that the replies be filed only after a fresh site inspection, to be conducted in the presence of the Court Commissioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, or team.

The bench, however, stopped short of passing stricter orders at this stage, “the Court was also of the view that some strict orders be passed against the said two concerned officials of the MCD and the ASI right away. However, on being persuaded by Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the MCD and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of ASI, we refrain from doing so, for the present.”

The bench also directed the Court Commissioner to get in touch with the two journalists, Mr Paras Singh (Hindustan Times) and Ms Richi Verma (Times of India) whose reports had brought the discrepancies to light, and to seek any further information available with them or their colleagues. The Court appreciated their reporting for “bringing into the public domain such disturbing ground reality.”

Ensure protection of Gumti

The Court also cautioned the State Archaeological Department and the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC) that they will be held accountable individually and organisationally if they fail to properly monitor the conservation work being carried out at the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, a protected monument in Delhi.

Flagging the primary responsibility of the two authorities for ensuring smooth execution of the work, the Court observed, “We indicate that it is primarily the duty of the State Archaeological Department and the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC) to ensure that the work is carried out smoothly with regard to Gumti of Shaikh Ali.”

The bench went on to make clear that any failure of coordination could invite scrutiny well beyond the immediate 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,” it stated

The matter is next listed for October 7, 2026.

Case: Rajeev Suri v Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

Click here to read the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Mr Shikhil Shiv Suri, Sr. Adv.; Mr TRB Sivakumar, AoR; Mrs Madhu Suri, Adv.; Ms Jyoti Suri, Adv.; Ms Wamika Chadha, Adv.; Mr Vibhor Choudhary, Adv.; Mr Aditya Bhardwaj, Adv.; Ms Sakshi Arora, Adv.; Mr Deva Vrat Anand, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr KM Nataraj, ASG; Mrs Madhulika Upadhyay AOR; Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR; Mr Siddhant Kohli, Adv.; Mr Raman Yadav, Adv.; Mr Chitvan Singhal, Adv.; Mr Mrigank Pathak, Adv.; Mr Sarthak Karol, Adv.; Mr Khushal Kolwar, Adv. 
Ms Aishwarya Bhati, ASG; Mr Amrish Kumar, AOR; Mr Udai Khanna, Adv.; Mr Kanu Agrawal, Adv.; Ms Shivika Mehra, Adv.; Mr Sunita Sharma, Adv.; Ms BLN Shivani, Adv.; Ms Satvika Thakur, Adv.; Mr Mohan Prasad Gupta, Adv.; Dr Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv.; Ms Shivani B, Adv.

Mr Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, ASG; Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR; Mr Prasanjeet Mahapatra, Adv.; Mr Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv.; Mr Neelakshi Bhaduria, Adv.; Mr Rishiesh Haridas, Adv.; Mr Ishaan Sharma, Adv.

Mr Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

Mr Arvind Gupta, AOR

Ms Swati Ghildiyal, AOR; Ms Neha Singh, Adv.; Mr Nimesh Bhatt, Adv.

Mr Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR

Mr Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

Mr SD Sanjay, Sr. Adv.; Mr Praveen Swarup, AOR; Mr Praveen Swarup, Adv.; Mr Rohit Swarup, Adv.; Mr PR Abhimanyu Karthikeya Raja, Adv.; Mr Ravi Kumar, Adv.; Mr Devesh Maurya, Adv.; Mr Saurabh Rohilla, Adv.; Ms. Sakshi, Adv.

Mr Kailash Vasdev, Sr Adv.; Mr Nitin Mishra, AOR; Mr Samresh Jha, Adv.; Mr Hargun Singh Kalra, Adv.; Ms. Shashanki, Adv.

Mr KM Nataraj, ASG; Mr Udit Dedhiya, Adv.; Mr VN Raghupathy, AOR; Mr Arihant Shrivardhan, Adv.

Ms. Vidula Mehrotra, AOR; Mr Shashank Bajpai, Adv.; Mr Ankur Mishra, Adv.; Mr Gurpreet Singh, Adv.; Mr Nitish Dham, Adv.; Mr Gopi Chand, Adv.; Mr Vatsal Tripathi, Adv.; Mr. Govind Singh, Adv.; Mr. Akshit Saxena, Adv.; Ms. Vaishnavstuti, Adv.

Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR; Mr Gaurav Liberhan, Adv.; Mr Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.; Ms Akruti Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Akshat Bajpai, AOR