The Supreme Court on 28 March 2026 issued a contempt notice to the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Yadubir Singh Rawat, for failure to submit a status report on the conservation condition of 173 protected heritage monuments in Delhi. A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh directed the ASI Director General to appear personally before the Court on the next date of hearing.
Background
The matter arises from a petition filed by Rajeev Suri concerning the conservation and monitoring of heritage monuments under various civic authorities in Delhi. The case originally pertained to the Gumti of Shaikh Ali, a Mughal-era monument, but was subsequently expanded to cover the broader state of heritage protection in the national capital. The Court had previously directed multiple agencies — including the ASI, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) — to submit comprehensive survey reports on the conservation status of monuments under their respective jurisdictions.
While the ASI is responsible for 173 nationally protected monuments in Delhi under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the agency failed to file the court-directed affidavit within the stipulated timeline, prompting the contempt proceedings.
Key Holdings
The Court's order addressed non-compliance by multiple agencies:
ASI non-compliance: The Director General was found to have failed to submit the mandated status report despite previous court directions, warranting a contempt notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and a direction for personal appearance.
MCD partial compliance: The Municipal Corporation of Delhi had surveyed only 62 of its 85 identified monuments, with the exercise remaining incomplete on several parameters. The Court noted the inadequacy of the survey progress.
NDMC compliance failure: Out of 54 identified monuments under the New Delhi Municipal Corporation, only two had been surveyed — a compliance rate that the Court found unacceptable.
Personal appearance direction: The Bench directed the ASI Director General to appear in person, signalling the Court's serious view of the agency's failure to comply with judicial directions on heritage protection.
Implications for Practitioners
The order reflects the Supreme Court's willingness to hold senior government officials personally accountable for non-compliance with judicial directions in heritage conservation matters. The direction for personal appearance of the ASI Director General is a significant escalation that public interest litigators and environmental law practitioners should note as a potential tool in enforcement of conservation obligations.
For government agencies, this order reinforces that court-directed survey and reporting obligations cannot be treated as routine administrative tasks to be deferred. The contempt jurisdiction provides the Court with coercive power to compel timely compliance.
Heritage conservation advocates should observe that the Court's expanded approach — from a single monument to 173 sites — demonstrates judicial receptiveness to systemic conservation challenges being addressed through a single PIL proceeding.