Delhi High Court Establishes High-Level Committee to Balance Heritage Preservation and Human Rights at Tughlaqabad Fort

New Delhi – In a significant move aimed at safeguarding national heritage while addressing a complex humanitarian issue, the Delhi High Court has constituted a high-level committee to devise a comprehensive policy for the removal of illegal encroachments and the subsequent rehabilitation of residents in and around the historic Tughlaqabad Fort. The decision underscores the judiciary's proactive role in balancing the stringent mandate of heritage preservation laws with the pressing need for a humane approach to displacement.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, issued the directive while hearing a batch of petitions, including a suo motu case initiated by the court in 2018. Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in this multifaceted matter.

The court's order establishes a clear framework for inter-agency collaboration to resolve the long-standing issue of widespread illegal occupation on land protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).

The Mandate and Composition of the Committee

The newly formed committee is tasked with conducting a thorough survey of the area, assessing the extent of encroachments, and formulating a joint policy for their removal. Crucially, the committee's mandate extends to developing a robust rehabilitation plan for those who will be displaced by the necessary clearance operations.

The composition of the committee reflects the multi-jurisdictional nature of the challenge, bringing together top officials from both the central and state governments. It will be chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, and includes:

• Director General, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
• Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, GNCTD
• Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)
• Commissioner, Delhi Police
• Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
• Divisional Commissioner, Revenue Department, GNCTD

The court has also granted the committee the authority to co-opt any other person, officer, or body it deems necessary to fulfill its objectives, ensuring a comprehensive and expert-driven approach.

Balancing Preservation with a "Human Problem"

At the heart of the High Court's order is the acknowledgment of a fundamental conflict: the legal imperative to protect a monument of national importance versus the socio-economic reality of the thousands who inhabit the area. The bench observed that the Tughlaqabad Fort is not merely a structure but a reflection of "India's historical ethos and heritage which needs to be preserved."

The court noted with concern the scale of the illegal occupation, which has persisted for years. "Though, no exact estimate is available as to the number of families residing in such area... the number is substantial," the bench stated. It highlighted that the encroachments range from "small dwelling units in the shape of shabby shanties" to "pucca proper houses," all of which stand in violation of the AMASR Act.

While affirming the necessity of clearing the area, the court was unequivocal about the corresponding responsibility of the state. "We have already observed above the need to make the entire area encroachment free, if we have to follow the legislative mandate expressed in the 1958 Act to preserve the monument," the court articulated. "However, such removal shall entail a human problem as well, which also needs to be solved by all the authorities including Government of India, the State Government, the Archaeological Survey of India and other related bodies."

This dual focus on enforcement and welfare is a critical aspect of the ruling, signaling a departure from purely punitive approaches to encroachment and moving towards a more holistic, solution-oriented framework.

Legal Framework and Rehabilitation Schemes

The legal foundation for the court's action is the AMASR Act, 1958, which designates the Tughlaqabad Fort as a protected monument and prohibits construction and other unauthorized activities within its vicinity to maintain its archaeological integrity. The court’s intervention aims to give teeth to this statutory mandate, which has been historically challenging to enforce due to the scale of the settlements.

In a key directive, the bench has explicitly instructed the committee to consider existing government welfare schemes for the rehabilitation of eligible residents. The order specifically mentions the "Pradhan Mantri - Unauthorised Colonies in Delhi Awas Yojana (PM-UDAY)," a central government scheme aimed at providing housing and conferring property rights. This instruction provides a concrete pathway for the committee to develop its rehabilitation policy, ensuring that displaced families are not left without recourse.

"The aforesaid Committee while deliberating issues and suggesting policy decision shall also consider various Government Schemes for rehabilitation," the order reads, thereby integrating social welfare policy directly into the heritage preservation effort.

Implications for Law and Policy

This ruling from the Delhi High Court is poised to have significant implications for public interest litigation, property law, and administrative governance concerning heritage sites across India.

1. A Template for Inter-Agency Coordination: The formation of a high-powered, multi-agency committee provides a potential template for resolving similar conflicts at other historical sites plagued by encroachment. By mandating cooperation between central and state bodies—from the ASI to the Delhi Police—the court is attempting to break down the administrative silos that often impede effective action.

2. Judicial Emphasis on Rehabilitation: The court’s strong emphasis on rehabilitation as a prerequisite for eviction reinforces a growing jurisprudential trend that recognizes the right to shelter and a dignified life, even for those residing in unauthorized settlements. This places a clear legal and moral obligation on the state to provide viable alternatives before undertaking large-scale displacement.

3. Proactive Judicial Oversight: By initiating a suo motu case and appointing an amicus curiae , the High Court is demonstrating a commitment to sustained judicial oversight. This ensures that the committee's progress will be monitored and that its eventual policy decisions will be subject to judicial scrutiny, lending accountability to the entire process.

The bench expressed its hope that the committee will "take into account all the relevant aspects and take appropriate decision for removal of unauthorized occupants and constructions as also rehabilitation of the residents."

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on December 3, 2024, by which time the committee is expected to have made substantive progress in its deliberations. The legal community and civil society will be closely watching the outcomes, as they could set a powerful precedent for how India protects its past while securing a just future for its citizens.