Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A Chief Justice of India led bench of the Supreme Court today asked the Aam Aadmi Party to vacate its office premises which has been allotted for the expansion of the district judiciary by June 15, 2024.

The bench has further asked AAP to approach Land and Development Office for allotment of alternate land. Further, L&DO has been asked to process the application in accordance with law within 4 weeks.

Court orally also remarked that after 2017, AAP had no lawful right to continue possession of the premises.

As the hearing commenced today, the bench also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was told by Senior Advocate AM Singhvi that "a particular government does not want me(AAP) to be flourishing and working".

Singhvi further submitted that AAP was being asked to relocate to Badarpur whereas, as a national party it should be given a space in Central Delhi.

"He cannot hold the Supreme Court and High Court to ransom saying that I will not vacate till I am given an alternate space", Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench.

Last month, AAP had informed the Supreme Court that it remained ready and willing to vacate the office premises in Delhi, but such vacation should be required only after at least one of the two office spaces that it is entitled to, is allotted to it in the New Delhi Municipal Area, appropriate to its status a national party.

In its intervention application, the ruling party in Delhi had claimed its lawful occupation of the premises in Bungalow No 206, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi was labelled as ‘encroachment’ before the Apex court on February 13.

"Far from being an instance of ‘encroachment’, the Subject Premises were officially allotted to the applicant by the Government of NCT of Delhi on 31.12.2015 for its State Unit Office. This was strictly in accordance with the entitlement as (at that time) a state party under the," it said.

AAP faced strong rebuke from the Supreme Court on February 13 after it was contended the party was occupying the space meant for the Delhi High Court.

Amicus curiae K Parameshwar had said that Delhi High Court officials went to take possession of a land allotted to the high court and they were not allowed as a political party’s office has been constructed there now.

The court had then expressed its displeasure saying the political party is sitting tight on the encroachment and it has to come to an end.

Cause Title: Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission Through its Secretary & Ors