Supreme Court Stops Outsourcing Of Tughlaqabad Fort Survey To Private Agency, Says Departments Can't Abdicate Responsibility

The Supreme Court recently took an objection to the committee formed by the Delhi High Court outsourcing a survey relating to the encroachment of Tughlaqabad Fort. It remarked that outsourcing such a survey reeks of bureaucratic red-tapism.

The survey was ordered by the Delhi High Court in a 2001 public interest litigation concerning the illegal encroachment and settlement at the Tughlaqabad Fort. The High Court had constituted a committee for the survey, but the committee made a decision to outsource it to a private agency. The Supreme Court has now ordered that no private agency shall be hired for conducting the survey, and has asked the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi, to work in tandem with the High Court's Committee.

The High Court's committee consisted of the following members :

- Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India- Chairman

- Director General, Archaeological Survey of India-Member

- Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, GNCTD-Member

- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi-Member

- Commissioner, Delhi Police-Member

- Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority-Member

- Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Department, GNCTD-Member

-Any other person/officer/body which this Committee deems fit may be co-opted

Proceedings in the Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice NK Singh has been hearing a matter relating to the conservation of heritage monuments in Delhi. The matter began with a writ petition filed by defence colony resident Rajeev Suri, raising the issue of encroachment and illegal occupation of Gumti of Shaikh Ali.

A series of stringent orders were passed by the Court from time to time, which led to the conservation of the Gumti with the assistance of Senior Advocate and Court-appointed Commissioner Gopal Sankaranarayanan

The Court had appointed an expert, Ms Swapna Liddle, ex-convener of INTACH (Delhi Chapter of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) and author of several books on the history of Delhi, to survey the Gumti.

Later, the matter was extended to preserve other neglected heritage monuments as well. In January this year, an application was filed by Senior Advocate Shikhil Shiv Suri (for the petitioner) submitted that various heritage sites under the ASI, Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) and the Government of NCT Delhi required protection.

Subsequently, various parties were asked to file affidavits with respect to the location, geo-mapping with up-to-date photos of the monuments. A contempt notice was issued to ASI officers who failed to file an affidavit, and the personal presence of the concerned officer was ordered.

On April 13, Shankarnarayan showed the affidavits of various heritage sites. One of them, he mentioned, which comes under the ASI, was Tughlaqabad Fort, where huge illegal settlements have taken place over time. He stated that the walls of the old city of Tughlaqabad need some repair. He referred to the fact that the Delhi High Court is already monitoring the illegal encroachment.

Swapna Liddle explained that during the British time, there was a village settlement which was limited to the Fort, but over time, it outgrew into an enormous settlement.

When Justice Amanullah stated that the Court will pass an order to restrict the encroachment so that it does not grow further, Sankaranarayanan informed that the High Court has constituted a Committee to conduct a survey and devise a joint policy decision for its removal. He also mentioned a recent March 18 order passed by the Delhi High Court, which noted that despite six months given to complete the survey, the survey committee hasn't been able to complete it.

When he added that the survey committee intends to outsource the survey to a private agency, Justice Amanullah took exception. He questioned not only the Delhi High Court for allowing the outsourcing but also the survey committee members.

"We are thoroughly disappointed by the order of the High Court and thoroughly disappointed by the attitude of the government. You want to set up an outsourcing agency for the survey? Why can't your people [ASI] go? What are they sitting here for? You have to select an agent? I take strong exception to this Mr Sanjay [ASI Counsel]....How dare you have an outside sourcing? This is the root of the corruption. What is the department doing?...We will supersede that order. Whose idea was it? I will personally suspend them all," Justice Amanullah remarked.

Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay explained to the Court that ASI has general expertise, a survey would require specialised expertise. He added that the ASI doesn't have enough manpower for this.

Justice Amanullah responded that no such manpower is required, as the officers are required to take only videography.

"[You are] abdicating the responsibility of a survey. Unfit to hold the post. Should I say the Director General should be removed from his post?," Justice Amanullah told the Director General of ASI.

ASG Sanjay requested that the Court may not pass any order and that he would ask the Committee to hold a meeting in this regard. However, the Court refused to entertain the argument and said that any work order issued to the privacy agency will stand cancelled.

Initially, it ordered: "With respect to item 19 on the ASI list, old city of Tughlaqabad, where it is stated that there are encroachments, where on one hand is has not been removed, and there is an increase both laterally and horizontally. This indicates that the area is open to encroachment by various land mafias under the nose of the authority.

At some point of time, with regard to the issues which we are forced to go into to ensure that the authorities are taking the court and the job seriously, the stand was pursuant to the Delhi High Court's order monitoring the Tughlaqabad Fort, a committee was set up. We are also informed that the committee has taken a decision to hire a decision for the survey. We pause here to indicate our shock at the conduct of the committee in outsourcing the job. It reeks of bureaucratic red tapism and also a complete insensitivity, and also a clear proof that the authorities/committee is unfit to hold the position. Accordingly, the government is directed to replace those persons.

We are constrained to direct entire committee members should be physically present in Court. It goes without exception that no prior engagement should be an exception to not being physically present."

However, later the Court modified its order and said:

"Learned Court Commissioner has passed a summary of the status report filed by the authorities, which is reproduced hereunder. The Court discussed the matter with the respondents as also the counsel, ASG Sanjay. Learned counsel for respondents have also been heard. Certain suggestions are given which we find practical and should be immediately implemented. We want to make the exercise more focused, so we ask five issues that need to be addressed immediately within 2 weeks.

With regard to the encroachment of Tughlaqabad Fort, it appears that the Delhi High Court is also looking into the matter. In the said proceedings on the 24.9.25, the division bench of the high court presided by Chief Justice constituted a committee...Following is the order of March 18, where it was indicated that the committee will conduct a survey at the site. It appears that such an agency is a private agency and the tender process has already proceeded and only final decision and issuance of work order remain.

We direct that the said shall not be implemented. We are of firm opinion that the exercise of such nature, where survey has to be conducted, the tendering of private agency appears to be totally unjustified. The departments can't abdicate their responsibility and outsource matters which can be totally done in-house. Organisations having a battery of professionals, both engineers and architects, are required to draw from their end. The same shall be done accordingly.

The Committee shall involve the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi and the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi. We request the Directors of the two to constitute a team and work in tandem with the Committee. Departmental heads have been made members of the Committee. As directed in order dated 18 March, the Commissioner of Police shall protect the Committee and the report shall be submitted as directed. We request the High Court to take the matter on priority basis and issue directions as required at the earliest.

The survey shall demarcate the exact extent of the structure, and comprehensive photography should be done. It shall be the duty of the Commission and DGP that there is no addition to the existing structure as found on the date of the survey. If anything is found, they shall be found personally liable.

We have passed directions in view of the fact that the issue before the High Court was initially monitored by this Court..."

Case Details: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and others SLP (c) 12213/2019