NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Thursday chastised the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) for allowing a Lodhi‑era monument to be used as a cow shed and dumping yard. The court’s remarks came during a hearing on a public‑interest litigation filed by heritage activist groups seeking protection for the structure, which dates to the late 1400s.
The petition, filed in June 2026, alleged that the monument, located in the historic Mehrauli area, had been encroached upon by a local cattle‑rearing community and that municipal officials had permitted the site to become a repository for solid waste. The petitioners argued that the encroachment violated the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and threatened the integrity of a protected heritage asset.
In a written order released on 8 October, the bench headed by Justice R. Banerjee noted that the ASI had failed to supervise the site after its designation as a protected monument in 1992. The court said the agency’s “lack of vigilance” had allowed the structure to be repurposed in a manner that “undermines the very purpose of heritage protection.”
Court’s Findings
The court examined the municipal records submitted by the MCD, which showed that a temporary shelter for stray cattle had been erected on the monument’s premises in March 2025. The shelter, built without any statutory approval, was reportedly used by a nearby dairy cooperative. Waste management logs indicated that the area had been used as a dumping ground for household refuse from adjacent colonies.
Justice Banerjee cited photographs taken by the petitioners in August 2025 that showed the monument’s stone walls littered with dung and plastic. The court described the images as “evidence of blatant neglect” and ordered an immediate cessation of all activities that compromise the monument’s structural integrity.
ASI’s Response
In a statement released after the hearing, the ASI acknowledged the court’s observations and said it would launch a “comprehensive audit” of all protected sites in Delhi. The agency pledged to form a task force comprising senior archaeologists and conservation engineers to oversee the removal of the cattle shelter and to supervise the cleaning of the site.
The ASI also said it would seek clarification from the MCD on the legal basis for the shelter’s installation and would file a separate petition in the Supreme Court to obtain directions on enforcing the Ancient Monuments Act against municipal violations.
Municipal Corporation’s Position
The MCD’s spokesperson, speaking to reporters outside the court, said the corporation had acted in “good faith” to address stray‑cattle issues in the area. The spokesperson added that the shelter was intended as a temporary measure and that the corporation had already begun the process of relocating the cattle to a designated gaushala.
According to the MCD’s internal memo dated 2 September 2026, the municipal authority had notified the ASI of the shelter’s existence and had requested guidance on how to proceed. The memo indicated that the corporation was prepared to dismantle the structure pending the ASI’s approval.
Legal and Heritage Implications
The court’s order underscores the tension between heritage preservation and urban‑livelihood concerns in rapidly expanding Indian cities. By invoking the Ancient Monuments Act, the bench reaffirmed that protected sites cannot be repurposed without explicit permission from the central heritage body.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s language—particularly the use of “rebuke” and “loss of credibility”—signals a willingness to hold the ASI accountable for administrative lapses. The order also directs the central government to consider revising the ASI’s monitoring mechanisms, including the possibility of periodic third‑party audits.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court directed the ASI and the MCD to submit a joint compliance report within 30 days, outlining the steps taken to clear the monument, restore its original condition, and prevent future encroachments. The court also ordered that any further violations be reported directly to the bench.
Heritage groups have welcomed the decision, calling it a “necessary intervention” to safeguard Delhi’s medieval legacy. They have urged the government to allocate additional funds for the conservation of at‑risk monuments, many of which face similar pressures from urban development and informal settlements.
