The Supreme Court has directed the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to vacate its office situated on land owned by the Rouse Avenue court by June 15th, 2022, ruling that the party has been unlawfully occupying the premises since 2015, when it was transferred to the Delhi High Court.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, emphasized that the AAP’s occupancy of the premises has been unauthorized since 2015.
“In view of impending general elections, we grant time till June 15, 2024, to vacate the premises so that the land allotted for extending the district judiciary’s footprint can be utilized,” stated the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the Court allowed the AAP to approach the Land and Development Office (L&DO) for the allocation of new land, providing a four-week deadline for the L&DO’s decision.
“We direct the Chief Secretary of the L&DO to present an alternate proposal before the Rouse Avenue Courts, given the urgent need for space,” the apex court emphasized.
This decision was made during a case concerning nationwide judicial infrastructure.
Previously, on February 13, the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the AAP’s occupation of the Rouse Avenue court area. Amicus Curiae K Parameshwar informed the court that the AAP office’s presence prevented the Delhi High Court officials from taking possession of the land allocated for court expansion.
The AAP argued that its office had been allotted well before the court complex expansion plans and expressed willingness to relocate to a suitable alternative location to facilitate the judiciary’s requirements.
However, the party criticized the L&DO for not conducting proper due diligence before allocating the land and claimed that its requests for alternative space in 2017 went unanswered.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the AAP, highlighting that unlike other national parties, AAP maintained an office in Badarpur rather than Central Delhi.
Advocate General Tushar Mehta, representing the L&DO, argued against the AAP’s stance, asserting that the party cannot hold the High Court or district tribunals hostage. The land in question was initially allocated to the Delhi government for constructing additional family tribunals.
Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the AAP to vacate the premises, putting an end to their occupation.
