Delhi High Court Withholds Verdict on AAP’s Office Space Appeal

The Delhi High Court abstained from issuing its judgment on Monday concerning the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) plea for temporary space provision for their party headquarters. Justice Subramonium Prasad deferred the ruling until June 5 and slated another session for June 10 to deliberate on the appeal for a permanent land grant for erecting an […]

by Nisha Srivastava - May 28, 2024, 9:50 am

The Delhi High Court abstained from issuing its judgment on Monday concerning the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) plea for temporary space provision for their party headquarters. Justice Subramonium Prasad deferred the ruling until June 5 and slated another session for June 10 to deliberate on the appeal for a permanent land grant for erecting an office.

Previously, the High Court instructed the Central Government to reply to AAP’s plea for temporary office premises. As per a Supreme Court commitment, AAP must vacate their existing office at DDU Marg by June 15.

In light of this deadline, AAP’s senior counsel pressed for space on DDU Marg. The High Court is currently evaluating two petitions from AAP, one seeking interim allotment and the other permanent allotment for their Central Delhi office.

The Central Government’s representative, Kirtimaan Singh, asserted that no available land was present at DDU Marg. He also pointed out that AAP was offered land in Saket in 2024, which they declined. Before achieving national party status in 2023, AAP never requested land in Central Delhi. Singh noted that in 2023, AAP claimed land was accessible on DDU Marg, but upon inspection, none was found. Instead, in 2024, two plots in Saket were proposed.

The Court acknowledged AAP’s argument that they were not treated equitably and suggested that plots currently occupied by AAP Ministers could be temporarily provided. However, Singh clarified that these plots were not assigned but utilized by AAP and must be relinquished first for consideration. Singh added that AAP previously had an office in Kaushambi.

Senior advocate Nandrajog criticized this move as an effort to mislead the court. The court questioned the existence of a waiting list for national political parties and whether houses were designated for them. Nandrajog expressed apprehensions about constructing a building by June 15 if land were granted.

During the prior hearing, the Court inquired about temporarily assigning plots held by a Delhi Minister for AAP’s office, contingent upon the petition’s resolution.