Delhi Gymkhana Club: ‘Oppressed entity’ to ‘unconstitutional’ clause — key arguments in court
The Delhi High Court heard competing arguments on the validity of the Centre's May 22 notice to hand over the Club premises, but ordered no interim relief
To many, Delhi Gymkhana, the rarified social hub of mostly retired high-ranking government officials and armed forces officers and their families, is a symbol of the privileges that India’s post-Independence bureaucratic elite have for decades claimed as entitlement. (File)
On Tuesday, as various stakeholders of the Delhi Gymkhana Club argued before the Delhi High Court opposing the Centre’s move to re-enter the Club’s premises, arguments on points of law differed between the members, the previous elected body and the employees.
‘Oppressed entity’
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Club member Vijay Khurana — the latter claimed he is representing the interests of over 550 members — argued that the May 22 notice by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) is “vague” and does not demonstrate public purpose. He added that “public purpose has to be real, genuine, and specific”. Singhvi also argued that the notice violates the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.
The notice had stated, “You are directed to hand over peaceful possession of the premises to the representatives of this office on the aforesaid date (June 5). In the event of non-compliance, possession shall be taken in accordance with law.”
It was highlighted that no prior notice was issued preceding the May 22 one and that the action suffers from legal malafide.
Explaining the member’s locus to challenge the notice, Singhvi argued that “since the Club is being managed and run by nominees of the central government… members of the Club had to take legal steps” to safeguard its interest.
Casting apprehensions on the Club’s intention to voluntarily hand over possession of the premises to the government — particularly since its management is now controlled by government-appointed nominees — Singhvi said: “… the body which ought to be taking action — Delhi Gymkhana Club — has been since replaced by nominees of (SG) Mr (Tushar) Mehta… Voluntary hand over does not suffice in this case (as an assurance for the members)… (The Club) is in the saddle, I (a member) am not… The nature of the suit (by Khurana) is one of derivative action since the oppressed entity (Delhi Gymkhana Club) is unable to file its own suit.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the last elected body’s head Atul Dev, took a different line of argument. Dev is presently only a member of the Club, after the elected body was dissolved and government-appointed nominees took over the Club’s management.
Story continues below this ad
Highlighting that Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed — through which the government is looking to re-enter the club premises — was framed prior to the Constitution of India, Sibal argued, “All clauses of any document has to be tested on the touchstone of our Constitution, not in reference to the clause… Any clause that empowers the government or imperial power of the time to take possession is an anathema to the Constitution. It is in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Sibal further added that apart from Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed being unconstitutional, the members, who are authorised occupant of the Club, are entitled to be given notice first before any eviction proceeding is undertaken. Sibal requested the court “to not interpret the clause in a manner that allows (the government) them to reenter.”
He also submitted that the showcause notice required for eviction and reentry cannot be post facto, that is after the Centre has entered the demised premises.
As Singhvi interjected to address further arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged him, “Let Mr Sibal complete his argument”.
Story continues below this ad
Singhvi retorted: “I love the bleeding heart, it does not need your derivative action.”
The court, on the other hand, inquired from the two sets of members, represented by Singhvi and Sibal: “Can different members take different stances?”
The two clarified that for the interim, the relief they are seeking is the same: that no further action be taken, pursuant to the May 22 notice, until the next date of hearing.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan, however, refused to order any interim relief after taking SG Mehta’s statement on record that no eviction shall be undertaken minus adhering to due process of law.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
