Delhi High Court Hears Plea Against Centre’s Order to Vacate Delhi Gymkhana Club

The Delhi High Court on Monday began hearing petitions challenging the Centre’s order directing the Delhi Gymkhana Club to hand over its premises. The elected office-bearers of the club have now also moved the High Court against the government’s decision, intensifying the legal battle over the prestigious institution.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the elected office-bearers, sought a hearing along with an already pending petition related to the matter. The High Court assured Sibal that his submissions would be heard.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gymkhana members, opened arguments before the court, stating that the club is a non-profit company. He argued that the government had directed the club to voluntarily hand over possession by June 5, despite the matter already being pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

During the hearing, the court questioned the petitioners about the nature of their grievance and whether there was any dispute involving club members.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the government would act strictly according to the legal process and would not forcibly take possession of the club premises. Referring to Clause 4, Mehta said the provision lays down a structured system under which lease-related decisions and further steps can be determined.

The High Court asked whether Mehta’s statement that the government would not immediately evict the club could be officially recorded. In response, the Solicitor General reiterated that possession would only be taken after following the procedure established under law.

Mehta further stated that the acquisition-related rules contain provisions for compensation, which may either be monetary or through the allotment of alternative land.

The petitioners, through Singhvi, alleged that the government had taken an “easy route” by replacing the club’s earlier elected 15-member committee with a 15-member nominated committee after proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT.

Later in the hearing, the Centre clarified that even if the club does not voluntarily vacate the premises by June 5, possession would still not be taken without completing the legal eviction process.

The High Court also observed that even if the land is eventually acquired, the membership rights of club members would remain intact. The Centre added that an alternative land parcel could also be offered to the club.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, News Setu makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk.