The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued summons on suits challenging the Centre’s move to resume and re-enter the Delhi Gymkhana Club premises, while recording the Union government’s statement that no forcible eviction would take place without following due process of law.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing suits filed by club members and employees against the May 22 communication issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO) seeking “re-entry and resumption” of the elite club premises at Safdarjung Road.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the government could not invoke an “imperial-era” lease clause to enter the premises without notice. He argued that Clause 4 of the 1928 lease deed, which permits re-entry for public purpose, must now be tested on the touchstone of the Constitution.

“Any clause which allows the government or the imperial power at that point in time to enter into a premises and take it over is anathema to the very fundamentals of our Constitution,” Mr Sibal submitted.

He contended that even an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises Act cannot be evicted without notice, whereas the government was seeking to dispossess an “authorised occupant” without following due process.

“Even an unauthorised occupant has to be proceeded against pursuant to a notice. I am an authorised occupant and you say that under Clause 4 I will not give you notice. How is that possible?” he argued.

Mr Sibal further submitted that the clause itself was “per se unconstitutional” in light of Article 14, arguing that constitutional guarantees now override pre-Constitution contractual arrangements.

Questioning the government’s assertion of “public purpose”, he argued that the notice lacked specificity and relied on vague references to defence infrastructure and public security.

“This is as vague as it can be. They haven’t specified a thing,” Mr Sibal told the Court while referring to the Centre’s justification for resumption of the land.

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for another set of members, relied on Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd v Union of India to contend that any alleged right of re-entry under a perpetual lease could only be enforced through a civil suit.

The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, clarified before the Court that the impugned communication pertained only to the termination of the lease and re-entry, and not forcible eviction. Mr Mehta assured the Court:

“There cannot be any eviction by force, by police force or anything of that nature. It will have to be by the procedure established by law, which would be after issuance of notice and whatever procedure is contemplated.”

Recording the statement, the Court observed:

“No further interim directions are called for… the statement is to the effect that for eviction, if so to be done, would be in accordance with law with prior notice.”

The Court also noted that the apprehension raised by the plaintiffs that the governing body of the club may hand over possession to the government was contrary to the stand taken by the club management itself, which had already approached authorities against the impugned communication.

The Court also did not accept or decide the argument at this stage that Clause 4 of the lease deed was unconstitutional. It specifically noted that:

“The issue with regard to the validity of Clause 4 and whether the communication is in consonance of Clause 4… need not be dilated at this stage.”

The suits will now proceed after completion of pleadings. The matter is listed for 28 July, 2026.