Supreme Court issues contempt notice to Archaeological Survey of India Director General for failing to submit conservation status of 173 monuments in Delhi

The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for failing to submit the conservation status of 173 notified heritage sites in the national capital.

“The court takes strong exception to the deliberate violation of the order of this court. Accordingly, notice is issued to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India to show cause 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,” a Bench led by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The Bench — which also included Justice N Kotiswar Singh — directed the ASI Director General to be present before it on the next date of hearing.

The issue of heritage sites in Delhi arose in a case filed by Rajeev Suri, flagging encroachment of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali — a Lodhi-era monument “Gumti of Shaikh Ali” in the Defence Colony area of South Delhi in July last, the top court had ordered the Delhi government to issue a fresh notification to declare “Gumti of Shaikh Ali” a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

The Department of Archaeology, Delhi government, has identified 19 monuments and inspected them, and with regard to the majority of the aspects/areas indicated, there is compliance, except for location and geo-mapping.

“However, only a general statement has been made that there has been compliance on the issues indicated in the earlier orders.

We direct for a further affidavit to be filed giving details of the 19 sites which, according to the Department of Archaeology, GNCTD, comes within its jurisdiction and which have also been inspected. It shall refer to all the areas indicated in our previous orders, and also to what steps have been taken monument-wise. It should include up-to-date photographs of the sites in question,” the Bench said.

It also recorded that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has surveyed only 62 monuments out of the 85 identified monuments and, on a few aspects, the exercise is not complete.

“Further, no details of the actual position have been brought on record. Accordingly, the direction issued in the previous paragraph to the Department of Archaeology, GNCTD, is extended to the MCD also,” the bench said.

Regarding the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), the Bench said, “…we find that out of the 54 identified monuments, only two monuments have been surveyed. Learned counsel for the NDMC submits that since the 52 sites indicated in the summary of the report are lying within its jurisdiction, it has some responsibility to coordinate with the other concerned authorities, relating to their maintenance, which responsibility the NDMC shall discharge and shall not be found wanting.”

It said, “…whatever suggestions will come from the NDMC to actually and effectively monitor and coordinate the work between different agencies; based on the same, this court shall issue appropriate direction to the agencies concerned, as may be required.”