The Supreme Court’s demand for a clear account of how Delhi Golf Club selects members has widened an already significant dispute over the protection of heritage structures inside and around the club’s premises. What began as a petition concerning the upkeep of historic buildings now raises a broader urban question: who is responsible when protected monuments occupy land used by an active private institution, and how transparently should that institution operate?
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N. Kotiswar Singh was dissatisfied with the affidavit filed by the Delhi Golf Club in response to an earlier order. The court said it had specifically sought the procedure for granting membership across all categories and the applicable fee structure. Instead, it described the club’s filing as a confusing mass of documents and directed it to submit a concise affidavit with the required information within one week.
The immediate issue is administrative clarity. The court is not merely seeking a list of rules; it wants to understand how access to the club is structured, which categories of membership exist, what fees apply and what process governs selection. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the club, told the bench that a shorter affidavit containing the necessary information would be filed.
The membership question emerged during proceedings on a petition filed by Delhi resident Rajiv Suri concerning the maintenance of heritage buildings. In previous hearings, the court had criticised the club for failing to maintain 10 heritage structures within and around its boundaries. These include an early Mughal-era tomb, the tombs of Mir Taqi and Syed Abid, a gateway, the Tughlaq-era Barah Khamba and other historic buildings.
That setting is important because the court’s concern is not limited to the condition of individual monuments. The case brings together three distinct systems that often operate separately in Delhi: private land use, heritage regulation and judicial oversight. The club manages an operational site with its own facilities and membership framework, while the monuments carry a public and historical significance that does not disappear because they are located within or beside club property.
The court-appointed inspection process has made that overlap visible. The bench appointed senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, along with advocates Nipun Saxena and Vishal Sinha, as court commissioners. Their site inspection found that several club facilities had been built very close to the heritage structures. It also reported that necessary measures to preserve the sanctity of the monuments had not been taken.
The findings place physical proximity at the centre of the dispute. A heritage structure is affected not only by whether its walls are standing, but also by the activities, construction and circulation taking place around it. The supplied report does not establish a complete conservation plan for the precinct, but the inspection findings show why the court has treated the issue as one of institutional responsibility rather than routine maintenance.
The Lal Bangla I and Lal Bangla II structures near the club’s entrance illustrate the regulatory stakes. Dating to 1779-80, both are centrally protected monuments under the Archaeological Survey of India. Following the court commissioners’ report, the Supreme Court on 27 May prohibited any activity within the 100-metre prohibited area around the two structures. It also restricted movement around the other heritage buildings.
Those directions effectively placed limits on activity in parts of a functioning urban site. They also demonstrated the difficulty of administering protected areas when they are embedded in an existing property rather than separated from everyday operations. The court’s intervention has therefore created a direct link between heritage protection and the management of access, construction and movement inside the club precinct.
Restoration work has generated a second layer of concern. The club told the court that the Aga Khan Trust had been assigned the restoration of the monuments. However, when the bench reviewed the work carried out by the trust in July, it objected strongly to the lime plaster applied to the structures. According to the supplied report, the plaster covered fine carvings and designs visible on the monuments.
The episode shows that restoration itself is not automatically equivalent to conservation. Repair work can become a matter of dispute when the materials or methods used affect the visibility of historic fabric and decorative detail. In this case, the court’s scrutiny has extended beyond whether work was undertaken to how that work altered the appearance and legibility of the structures.
The case also sits within a much larger concern about Delhi’s notified heritage. In February, Suri placed before the court a 2021 report identifying 1,100 notified heritage sites in the capital. On the basis of that material, the court sought responses from the Archaeological Survey of India, the Delhi government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the New Delhi Municipal Council. It also asked the authorities to take steps needed to restore the former character of the sites.
The number cited in the proceedings is significant because it shifts the frame from one club and 10 buildings to the capacity of the city’s institutions to protect a large and dispersed heritage inventory. The supplied material does not provide a status report for all 1,100 sites, nor does it establish how many are adequately maintained. It does, however, show that the Supreme Court has required multiple public agencies to respond, making heritage preservation a question of coordination as well as enforcement.
The institutional map is consequently complex. The ASI is directly relevant to centrally protected structures such as Lal Bangla I and Lal Bangla II. The Delhi government and its archaeology department have responsibilities connected to the city’s heritage framework. The MCD and NDMC also become part of the administrative response because urban land, public movement, civic services and local regulation can affect the surroundings of heritage sites. The club, meanwhile, remains responsible for the operation of its premises and for responding to the court’s directions.
This division of responsibility can create gaps unless each agency’s role is clearly documented. The Supreme Court’s frustration with the club’s affidavit reflects one version of that problem: when an institution responds with a large volume of material but does not answer the precise questions asked, procedural compliance does not necessarily produce administrative transparency. The court’s demand for a short, clear affidavit is therefore also a demand for an intelligible governance record.
The membership issue and the conservation issue may appear unrelated, but the proceedings connect them through the question of how the club functions as an institution. Membership categories and fees determine access to the club. The location and operation of club facilities affect the physical environment around protected structures. The court’s insistence on understanding both aspects suggests that accountability in a heritage precinct cannot be confined to the condition of the monuments alone.
The reported restoration of a Lodhi-period monument in Defence Colony adds another dimension. The initiative followed Suri’s intervention, and the Delhi government’s archaeology department subsequently declared the monument protected. The episode indicates that legal and civic attention can lead to formal recognition and restoration, although the supplied material does not establish whether this model has been applied more widely.
For Delhi, the central urban challenge is not simply preserving old buildings as isolated objects. It is managing historic structures within a living city where land has competing uses, institutions have different mandates and public authorities must coordinate with private occupants. The Delhi Golf Club proceedings provide a concrete example of what happens when those responsibilities are tested in court.
The evidence currently confirms several things: the Supreme Court wants the club to clarify its membership process and fee structure; court-appointed commissioners found facilities close to heritage buildings and inadequate protective measures; activity restrictions were imposed around centrally protected monuments; and the court has questioned aspects of restoration work. What remains to be established is how the club will respond, what conservation measures will follow and how the public authorities will coordinate their obligations across Delhi’s wider heritage inventory.
The next significant step is the filing of the club’s promised affidavit within one week. That document is likely to clarify the membership framework at the centre of the latest hearing. The wider proceedings will continue to determine whether the restrictions, restoration concerns and institutional responsibilities produce a more accountable system for protecting the heritage structures within and around the club.
