SUMMARY

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard Delhi Gymkhana Club’s plea challenging the Centre’s order directing the club to vacate its premises, with the government assuring the court that possession would not be taken forcefully and that due legal procedure would be followed.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said 5 June was the date given to the club to vacate on its own, but added that if it did not do so, it was not as though the police would rush in and take forcible possession, and that the procedure under law for eviction from public premises would be followed.

When the court asked whether his statement could be recorded, Mehta said yes. The court then put it to the Centre that it was saying possession would not be taken without following the procedure established by law. Mehta replied, “We will not take possession, except in accordance with the law.” He added that it could not be on 5 June itself, since notice would have to be issued.

DO CHECKOUT | From Delhi Gymkhana to Royal Bombay Yacht Club: Where power & legacy rules entry corridors

The hearing also focused on the validity of the Centre’s order, the government’s stated public interest grounds, and the issue of compensation. As the order was read out in court, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the club, pointed to the government’s direction on “re-entry and resumption” of the premises comprising the Gymkhana Club. The order said the premises were “critically required for strengthening of defence infrastructure and other public security purposes”.

Mehta told the court that Clause 4 provided the framework under which the lease could be determined. He said the first step was to determine and terminate the lease on grounds of public interest, after which the consequences provided for under the clause would follow. On compensation, he said it could be either monetary or in the form of an alternate piece of land where the club could resume its activities.

MUST READ | Restless royalty, imperial roots: Here's some interesting facts about Delhi Gymkhana Club

Earlier in the hearing, Singhvi said there were “5-6 heads” to the challenge, while the court said it would first read the impugned communication issued by the government.

Singhvi also submitted that the government had earlier said it wanted to replace the governing body, and added that the governing committee already had people from the government. He also said 500 members had approached the court. At this point, the court asked, "What's your locus standi? Your membership is not going.”

The court also told Singhvi that he was raising allegations against 15 nominated parties, whom he claimed were hand in glove with the government, and asked whether that issue could be raised in these proceedings without making them parties, especially when the issue was already before the NCLAT.

Responding to the concern, Mehta said the apprehension appeared to be that the Gymkhana Club was being managed by a committee constituted by the Centre and that this committee would hand over possession. He said the committee had already objected to this.

Published on: May 26, 2026 11:13 AM IST