On Monday (4th March), the Supreme Court came down heavily over the alleged ‘encroachment’ of land by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) for occupying the land meant for Delhi judiciary as its party head office. Subsequently, the apex court directed the Arvind Kejriwal-led political party to vacate the premises. However, considering the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, the court granted AAP time to approach the Land and Development Office (L&DO) to get an alternate land for its offices and set 15th June as the deadline.
Notably, it is said that AAP encroached on the land located at Rouse Avenue in New Delhi. The encroached land is earmarked for the Delhi judiciary for the expansion of the district judiciary, but AAP has been occupying it as its party office. However, AAP has rejected the allegations claiming that the land was lawfully allotted to the party before it was earmarked for the expansion of the Rouse Avenue court complex.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ruled, “In view of the impending elections, we grant time till 15 June, 2024, to vacate the premises so that the land which has been allotted for the purpose of expanding the footprint of the district judiciary can be duly utilised on an expeditious basis.”
Slamming Aam Aadmi Party for ‘illegally occupying’ the encroached land, the three-judge bench emphasised that AAP has no lawful right to continue occupying the allotted land.
The apex court further highlighted in its ruling the urgent requirement for premises to accommodate new recruits of the Delhi High Court, as courtrooms are currently unavailable. Given that the MTNL building, which was earlier proposed, has been found to be unsuitable, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of the Delhi Government to present an alternative proposal within two weeks and convey it to the Chief Justice of the High Court.
AAP cannot hold Supreme Court and High Court to ransom: Solicitor General
During the proceedings, CJI Chandrachud asked, “After L&DO allotted it to the District court complex, how did it go to the political party (AAP).”
The Amicus Curiae informed the bench that the High Court has not been able to utilise the land, adding that the HC refrained itself from getting into politics.
Appearing for AAP, Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that AAP has not ‘encroached’ or is not ‘occupying’ the land as it was “lawfully allotted” to the party. AAP’s counsel Singhvi also sought relaxation claiming that AAP is a national party and it deserved something.
Singhvi argued, “From 1993 the land was used by NCT, and in 2015 the NCT allotted it to the party for its party office.. it was not the LNDO.. I am only one out of 6 national political parties.. it is a party that has a certain percentage of votes and presence in 2 or more states.”
He added, “They are telling us as a national party we get nothing. I’m given Badarpur, while everyone else is in better places.”
To which, the CJI criticised Singhvi for using the platform of the Supreme Court to allot land to Aam Aadmi Party. CJI Chandrachud pointed out, “You are using our good offices to have a land allotted to you…”
CJI: you are using our good offices to have a land allotted to you…
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) March 4, 2024
Singhvi: it was allotted to us in 2015..
Adv K Parmeshwar: please see the 2022 allotment to establish family courts.
Responding to Shingvi’s argument, the Solicitor General slammed him stating that he cannot hold the Supreme Court and High Court to ransom and that he (representing AAP) will not vacate till the party is given another land.
Singhvi: they are telling as a national party we get nothing.. we get something atleast in central delhi
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) March 4, 2024
SG: he cannot hold supreme court and high court to ransom that i will not vacated till given another land
While the bench noted that AAP has no lawful right to continue occupying the allotted land, it granted the party time till 15th June to approach L&DO to get alternate land for its offices. It also directed the L&DO to process the application in accordance with the law in the meantime and communicate its decision within 4 weeks.
Pertinent to note that in previous hearings, the CJI, who appeared to be annoyed after learning about the encroachment, had warned the counsel representing the AAP-led Delhi government that the land must be returned to the High Court. CJI Chandrachud remarked, “No one can take the law into their own hands … How can a political party sit tight on that?”
The Delhi government was represented by Senior Advocate Wasim Qadri and Vikramjit Banerjee.
The Supreme Court had earlier criticised the Delhi government for its negligent approach to allocating funds for infrastructure in the Delhi district judiciary. At that time, the Chief Justice of India noted that as of March 2021, approvals had been given for three out of four projects, yet the funds for these projects had not been disbursed.
