HC bans Kapil Sibal’s argument in Gymkhana case, says – ‘After all, in what capacity did you…’

The Delhi High Court has refused to stay the Central Government’s order to vacate the Gymkhana Club in Lutyens’ Delhi. However, the court has issued a notice to the Central Government on this order and directed it to file its reply within eight weeks. During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal also appeared before the High Court; Responding to their arguments, the Court said that since their petitioner had already been expelled, he could not be present there as a member.

On Tuesday (May 26, 2026), the High Court heard two petitions related to this matter. One petition was filed by club member Vijay Khurana, while the other petition was filed on behalf of the club’s Employees Welfare Association. Vijay Khurana has been a long-time member of the club. The third petition was filed on behalf of the previous elected body of Delhi Gymkhana Club, in which senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared as their counsel. At the beginning of the hearing, Kapil Sibal requested the Court to club this petition with the other two petitions.

Refusing to stay the government order, the Delhi High Court said that, for the time being, the matter is limited only to the question of interim relief. In response, Kapil Sibal argued, “Any condition which gives the government the right to take possession of any institution or property is against the basic spirit of the Constitution. This order is in direct violation of the Constitution. Please consider the entire background of the case. Once the government enters the premises, it has no right to remain inside.” He further commented that, otherwise, it would be like appealing from one ‘occupying authority’ to another ‘occupying authority’.

Representing the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta challenged the plea and argued that no legal concept as “previous institution” exists. The High Court again told Kapil Sibal, “Your petitioner has already been expelled… You cannot appear here as a member.” To this, Kapil Sibal replied, “We are all members.” The High Court told the petitioner, “The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has removed you from your post, and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has upheld this order.” The case was also heard before the NCLT and NCLAT in 2020; Both these institutions heard the case and the concerned institution was removed.

The High Court asked the petitioner whether this application was being filed as a member, or on behalf of some previous committee. In response to this, Kapil Sibal argued that even against any unauthorized person, action should be initiated as per the prescribed notice procedure. Responding to the Centre’s arguments, he said, “I am not unauthorized; I am authorized. Yet, you are adamant that you will not give me notice.”

Kapil Sibal argued that Article 4 was introduced during ‘imperial’ rule. He argued that after the implementation of the Constitution, any such provision is no longer valid. He made this argument in response to the Centre’s submission which had claimed that Section 4 prescribes a specific framework within which the terms of the lease can be determined; Also, a detailed description of the various steps to be taken in this process is also given. Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Mehta maintained that the provisions relating to acquisitions are contained in the rules themselves. He noted that one such provision mandates payment of compensation, which may be in the form of cash or allotment of an alternative plot of land by the government.