The Supreme Court expressed disappointment that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) political office located at the Delhi Rouse Avenue Court was built over encroached land that was originally allotted to the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court took note of the issue while dealing with a case concerning judicial infrastructure across the country.
The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra was informed today by Amicus Curiae K Parameshwar that even though Delhi High Court officials went to take possession of certain land allotted to them, a political party office was built there and they could not take the land back. Law Secretary to the Delhi government, Bharat Parashar also apprised the Court that the said land has been with the AAP since 2016.
Subsequently, the Chief Justice of India cautioned the counsel appearing for the AAP-led Delhi government that the land must be returned to the High Court. He added that no one can take law into their own hands and that unencumbered possession must be given to the High Court.
The apex court further directed the Chief Secretary of the Delhi government, the Secretary to the Delhi Public Works Department and the Finance Secretary to the Delhi government to convene a meeting with the Registrar General of Delhi High Court to ascertain that encroachments are removed. Reportedly, the meeting is to be held before the next date of hearing in the matter before the top court.
Earlier, the top court had criticised the Delhi government for its lackadaisical attitude towards providing funds for infrastructure in the Delhi district judiciary. The Chief Justice of India had noted that approvals were granted for three out of four projects as of March 2021. Nonetheless, funds for these projects were yet to be released.
The Supreme Court also noted that as of December 5, 2023, there was a need for 118 courtrooms to accommodate the sanctioned strength of 887 judicial officers or 114 courtrooms to accommodate the present working strength of 813 judicial officers. The court had observed that the delay in approving funds is lamentable and there is no justification for the lackadaisical attitude of the Delhi government towards the Delhi district judiciary.