Supreme Court Permits Delhi Gymkhana Club Members To Move Plea Against Centre's Eviction Before High Court

The Supreme Court today asked the Delhi High Court to consider the petitions moved by members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, challenging the Centre’s decision to take over the club's 27.3-acre premises and the subsequent eviction proceedings.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentioned the issue on behalf of the Club's members, "Our writ petitions are pending before the High Court..but we have been asked to get a clarification from this court..an objection has been taken that members of club cannot file a suit..and only club can do so.."

CJI Surya Kant after hearing the submission ordered, "On oral mentioning the issue is taken up..The order dated September 15, 2026 is clarified to the extent that petitioners may initiate independent proceedings.."

Notably, the Delhi Gymkhana Club had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Central Government’s decision directing it to hand over its 27.3-acre premises at Safdarjung Road in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5, 2026.

The dispute arises from an order issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO) under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, whereby the Centre has invoked Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed executed in favour of the erstwhile Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. The clause permits re-entry and termination of lease if the premises are required for public purpose.

The government has asserted that the property, situated in a strategically sensitive zone of the national capital, is required for strengthening and securing defence infrastructure as well as other public security-related uses. The order states that the entire 27.3-acre parcel, including all buildings, lawns, structures and fittings, shall vest in the President of India through the L&DO upon re-entry and resumption of possession.

The Centre has further maintained that the decision is driven by urgent public interest considerations linked to national security and integrated governance infrastructure in adjoining government land areas within Lutyens’ Delhi.

Challenging the move, the Gymkhana Club has argued that the order would result in abrupt disruption of its functioning and cause large-scale dislocation of members and staff. The Club has stated that it currently has around 14,000 members and engages more than 500 employees, many of whom depend on the institution for their livelihood.

The Club has also pointed out that it is presently being managed by a General Committee appointed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs pursuant to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). According to the Club, this committee is functioning as a transitional arrangement pending the constitution of an elected governing body.

In its communication to the authorities, the Club requested that there should be no immediate dislocation of its operations until pending issues are resolved. It has also highlighted improvements in its financial condition and administrative functioning in recent years, asserting that the institution has stabilised after earlier regulatory intervention.

The Club has further submitted that if relocation is eventually considered necessary, the government should explore allotment of alternative land for continuity of its activities and preservation of its institutional structure. The Centre’s order, issued through the L&DO, underscores that the premises are located in a “highly sensitive and strategic area” and are required for defence and public interest purposes. It maintains that the re-entry and resumption action is legally permissible under the terms of the lease agreement.

Last month, High Court had indicated that the Estate Officer under the Public Premises law should first consider whether it ought to proceed with the notice issued against the Delhi Gymkhana Club while the question of his jurisdiction remains pending before the Court.

The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan hearing the dispute adjourned the matter to enable counsel appearing for the Gymkhana members to obtain instructions on whether they could consent to the Estate Officer first examining the jurisdictional objection before taking further steps against the Club.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, had submitted that any response to or appearance before the Estate Officer would be without prejudice to the Club’s fundamental objection regarding jurisdiction. Singhvi also pointed out that the pending suit, in its present form, does not directly concern the Public Premises proceedings.

Notably, on May 26, the High Court had refused to grant interim relief to the Delhi Gymkhana Club in its challenge against the Centre’s move directing the Club to vacate its premises by June 5, after the Union government assured the Court that no possession would be taken except in accordance with law.

Mentioning Date: October 5, 2026

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Mohana