High Court Hears Challenge Over Gymkhana Club Land
A major legal and political controversy unfolded in the Delhi High Court on Tuesday after members of the historic Delhi Gymkhana Club challenged the Centre’s decision directing the institution to vacate its sprawling Safdarjung Road property.
During the hearing, the Union government assured the court that it would not forcibly occupy the club premises even if the property was not vacated by the June 5 deadline mentioned in the official notice.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the date was intended only for voluntary vacation of the premises and that any future action would strictly follow legal procedure.
“We will not take possession except in accordance with law,” Mehta told the court.
Club Members Oppose ‘Vague’ Government Order
The case relates to the government’s order asking the club to hand over its 27.3-acre property located at 2, Safdarjung Road in Lutyens’ Delhi, citing defence and public security requirements.
Representing club members, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the takeover order lacked clarity and failed to provide specific reasons for reclaiming the land.
According to Singhvi, references to “defence infrastructure,” “institutional needs” and “public security” in the government order were too broad and unsupported by detailed material.
“A club running for 100 years can wait till July,” Singhvi remarked during the proceedings.
Court Records Government Assurance
The Delhi High Court recorded the Centre’s assurance that any eviction process would be carried out only after following due legal procedure and issuing proper notice.
After noting the statement, the court declined to issue interim protection orders but directed respondents to file written replies within eight weeks.
The matter has now been scheduled for further hearing on July 28.
During the proceedings, the court also observed that club members themselves were not leaseholders of the land.
“Even if the land is taken, your membership remains. You are not the lessee,” the court remarked.
Centre Says Alternative Site Could Be Offered
The Union government also informed the court that an alternative site may be provided for the club’s future operations.
However, club representatives maintained that the current action was part of a larger attempt to take control of the institution and its management structure.
Another petition linked to the dispute was separately mentioned before the High Court by senior advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the club’s last elected governing body.
Why the Government Wants the Land
The land reclamation notice was issued by the Land and Development Office under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
The Centre invoked a clause in the original lease agreement allowing the government to reclaim the land for “public purpose.”
According to the government, the highly sensitive location near the Prime Minister’s residence and other strategic establishments is required for strengthening defence infrastructure and security-related facilities.
Delhi Gymkhana Calls Move a ‘Sham’
In its petition, the Delhi Gymkhana Club argued that the takeover order violated constitutional protections under Article 300A and failed to mention compensation for the land, structures and investments made over decades.
The club also claimed that the government had previously acknowledged its ownership rights in official communication issued years earlier.
