New Delhi:The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has moved the Supreme Court claiming that its party office located at the Rouse Avenue court area is not an encroachment and it was lawfully allotted to the political party, long before it was earmarked for extending the Rouse Avenue court complex. The party said it is cognizant of the necessity of judicial infrastructure for the welfare of Delhi’s citizens and has no cavils about relocating its state unit office to an appropriate, alternative space.
AAP, in its intervention application, said far from being an instance of ‘encroachment’, the subject premises were officially allotted to it by the government of NCT of Delhi (‘GNCTD’) on December 31, 2025, for its state unit office. The party said such allotment of office space for official party work is an essential element of public funding of elections in India and is designed to level the electoral playing field.
The party said since this allotment, it has risen to become a national political party and status has further enhanced its need for, as well as its entitlement to, office spaces in the New Delhi Municipal Area, at par with the 5 other national parties. “There is no question of the applicant ‘encroaching’ on a space that was duly allotted to it in 2015 and that has been in its possession since then. The subject premises had been in the applicant’s occupation long before it was earmarked for extending the Rouse Avenue Court Complex”, said the application.
The party said the Land & Development Office (L&DO) allotted 3.03 acres of land to GNCTD on September 18, 2020, for building additional court rooms for Rouse Avenue court, which was stated to be adjacent to the Rouse Avenue court. “When the land was to be taken over, it was then stated by L&DO on December 12, 2023 that, not just the vacant land that is adjacent to the Rouse Avenue Court complex, but a bituminous road and the office of Aam Aadmi Party exist on the said land are also to be allotted for the construction. There is no explanation forthcoming for why due diligence was not exercised by the L&DO by examining the pre-existing status of the land and its vacancy”, said the application.