Court flags non-compliance by ASI
The Supreme Court has issued a show-cause notice to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for not filing an affidavit on the conservation of 173 heritage monuments in Delhi.
A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh considered the issue in the ongoing proceedings in Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and others (SLP (C) 12213/2019). The case began with the Gumti of Shaikh Ali and later widened to include other heritage structures under different civic authorities in Delhi.
Court refers to earlier directions
The bench recalled its order dated February 2, 2026, which had directed the concerned authorities to submit status reports with specific suggestions on inspection and documentation of monuments. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who is assisting as Court Commissioner, placed a summary before the Court stating that 173 monuments fall within the ASI’s jurisdiction.
Despite that direction, the ASI did not file any affidavit.
Taking a serious view of the lapse, the bench said the ASI had deliberately violated the Court’s order. It then issued notice to the Director General of ASI and asked him to show cause why the Court should not start contempt proceedings against him.
The Court said:
“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.”
Directions to Delhi government archaeology department
The Court also reviewed the status of monuments under the Department of Archaeology, Government of NCT of Delhi. It recorded that the department had inspected all 19 monuments identified under its control.
However, the bench found gaps in location identification and geo-mapping. It also found the information placed on record too general. The Court therefore directed the department to file a detailed affidavit for each monument and to attach updated photographs.
MCD and NDMC asked to give monument-wise details
The bench then examined the position of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). It noted that the MCD had surveyed only 62 of the 85 identified monuments and had not completed the exercise on several aspects. The Court directed the civic body to file monument-wise details showing the actual position and the steps it has taken for compliance.
In relation to the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), the Court noted that the council had surveyed only two of the 54 identified monuments. The bench directed the NDMC to file an affidavit explaining its role and the coordination mechanism it follows with other authorities for effective monitoring and maintenance of monuments within its jurisdiction.
Court insists on precise documentation
The Court made it clear that every authority must place on record precise location details, geo-mapping information, and updated photographs for each monument. It also asked the authorities to provide full compliance details on all issues identified in its earlier orders.
Historian Swapna Liddle asked to be present
The bench further directed that its earlier order be communicated to historian Swapna Liddle. It requested her presence on the next date of hearing and noted that the matter had not moved forward on one aspect because the earlier order had not been communicated to her.
Court reviews work around Gumti of Shaikh Ali
The Supreme Court also considered the scheme for the surrounding area of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali. The Tourism Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi is implementing that work through subcontractors.
The bench directed the department to ensure that the pace of work does not slow down. It also cautioned the department not to let the project turn into a commercial venture. The Court has sought a status report on that project as well.
Case: Rajeev Suri v. Archaeological Survey of India and others, SLP (C) 12213/2019.
Also Read: AIMPLB on Sabarimala Reference.
