The legal battle over the fate of the historic Delhi Gymkhana Club has reached the Delhi High Court, with members and employees challenging the Union government’s directive to vacate its sprawling 27.3-acre premises in Lutyens’ Delhi.
On Tuesday, the court issued summons in the suits filed by club member Vijay Khurana and the Staff Welfare Association. However, it declined to grant any interim protection against the government’s May 22 order asking the club to vacate the premises by June 5.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan observed that the apprehensions raised were premature, noting that no formal eviction action had yet been initiated under the Public Premises Act. The court relied on the Centre’s assurance that any eviction would follow due process of law and would not be carried out arbitrarily.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that eviction, if undertaken, would follow established legal procedures, including prior notice.
The court recorded this assurance, stating that there was no immediate cause for intervention. It also noted that the fear that the club’s governing body might voluntarily hand over possession was inconsistent with the stand taken by the club itself.
When pressed by the court on whether possession would be taken on June 5, the government reiterated that no such step would occur without due legal process, effectively ruling out any abrupt action.
Internal conflict within the club
The case also exposed deep divisions within the club’s stakeholders. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khurana, argued that the club was effectively under government control after the National Company Law Tribunal replaced its elected body with a nominated committee.
He described the situation as one where the oppressed is part of the oppressor, pointing to the complexities arising from the governance structure imposed by the Centre.
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the last elected body, sought to intervene, arguing that the government’s move violated constitutional principles, particularly Article 14. He contended that the Centre had no authority to enter or take over the premises without following proper legal procedures.
The court, however, questioned the locus of the erstwhile management, noting that it had already been replaced through orders upheld by the appellate tribunal.
At the heart of the dispute lies Clause 4 of the 1928 lease deed, which allows the government to re-enter the premises if required for public purpose. The Centre has invoked this provision, citing national security concerns and the need for strengthening defence and governance infrastructure.
The petitioners, however, have challenged this move as arbitrary and vague. They argue that the government has failed to provide concrete justification for invoking the clause and has not offered compensation for the land or existing structures.
Khurana has further contended that the notice violates Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects property rights, asserting that the lease conferred proprietary interests that cannot be extinguished without due process and compensation.
While refusing interim relief, the Delhi High Court made it clear that the petitioners retain the right to challenge any future action taken under the Public Premises Act.