Supreme Court Takes Strict Action on Delhi Heritage Conservation The Supreme Court issued a show‑cause notice to the Director General of the ASI for not filing an affidavit on the status of 173 heritage monuments in Delhi. The bench, comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh , set a personal appearance date of 13 April 2026. Key Developments Earlier order dated 2 February 2026 required the ASI to submit status reports with specific inspection and documentation suggestions. The Court Commissioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan , identified 173 monuments under ASI’s purview, but no affidavit was filed. Show‑cause notice issued to the ASI Director, warning of possible contempt proceedings . Delhi’s Department of Archaeology, MCD , and NDMC were directed to file detailed, monument‑wise affidavits with up‑to‑date photographs, precise location, and geo‑mapping data. Only 19 monuments inspected by Delhi’s archaeology department; 62 of 85 by MCD; 2 of 54 by NDMC – indicating large gaps. Historian Swapna Liddle to be informed of the earlier order and summoned for the next hearing. Tourism Department’s scheme for the surrounding area of the Gumti of Shaikh Ali must proceed without commercialisation; a status report was sought. Important Facts 173 heritage monuments in Delhi fall under ASI’s jurisdiction. Delhi’s archaeology department identified 19 monuments; MCD identified 85 ; NDMC identified 54 . Compliance gaps: location identification and geo‑mapping missing for many sites. Case reference: Rajeev Suri v. ASI & others, SLP (c) 12213/2019 . UPSC Relevance This case illustrates the intersection of polity and history . Aspirants should note: The role of the judiciary in enforcing heritage‑conservation policies. Administrative responsibilities of central (ASI) and local bodies (MCD, NDMC) in safeguarding monuments. Legal implications of non‑compliance, including contempt of court. Importance of documentation tools like geo‑mapping for effective monitoring. Way Forward To avoid contempt proceedings, the ASI must file the pending affidavit by the stipulated date, detailing conservation measures for each of the 173 monuments. Delhi’s civic authorities should complete the pending surveys, submit precise geo‑coordinates, and update photographs. Continuous judicial oversight may become a precedent for stricter compliance in heritage management, urging policymakers to institutionalise robust monitoring mechanisms.