AAP is ordered by the Supreme Court to close its Delhi headquarters by June 15

On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered the Aam Aadmi Party to leave a home on property given to the Delhi High Court for the purpose of expanding the legal system’s infrastructure in the nation’s capital by June 15.

On that land stands the party headquarters of the AAP.

The AAP was, however, permitted to apply for alternative property from the property and development office (L&DO) of the Center by a bench chaired by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who had previously chastised the party for infringing on territory intended for the growth of judicial facilities.

“In view of the impending general election, we grant time till June 15 to vacate the premises so that land allotted to extend district judiciary footprint can be duly utilized on an expeditious basis,” the Court said.

“We permit the AAP to move the Center (L&DO) for allotment of land and LN&DO to process the application in accordance with law in the meantime and communicate its decision within four weeks,” it said.

The Supreme Court said that courtrooms were not available and that the Delhi High Court urgently needed space allocated for lodging the new hires.

The originally planned MTNL building was deemed inappropriate, and as a result, the Delhi government’s Chief Secretary was instructed to devise a new design within a week and submit it to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

A meeting for the removal of the encroachment was ordered by the Supreme Court last month, after it became apparent that the AAP had constructed its office at Rouse Avenue in the national capital on land that had been originally assigned to the Delhi High Court for the purpose of expanding its judicial infrastructure. The court was deeply troubled by this development.

How on earth can a political party remain silent about that? The CJI-led Bench had said, “The High Court must be granted unimpeded possession,” during a hearing on a petition about the state of the district court in India.

“How can a political party be so rigid about the fact that no one may impose law on others? The High Court must be granted full possession. What use will it serve the High Court—only the general public and citizens? The CJI had questioned, “Why was the property given to the High Court then?

After amicus curiae K Parameshwar informed the Bench that a political party had established its office on the disputed land, the top court had asked the Delhi Chief Secretary, Secretary, Delhi Public Works Department, and the Finance Secretary of the NCT government to call a meeting to find a solution.

Related Articles

Back to top button