The future of the historic Delhi Gymkhana Club has become the centre of a growing dispute, with the club’s general committee urging the Centre not to take any step that could disrupt its functioning until unresolved concerns are addressed. These concerns include the possibility of relocation and the future of hundreds of employees linked to the institution.
In a letter sent to the Land and Development Office (L&DO), the committee constituted by the Government of India asked the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and the L&DO to consider allotting an alternative plot if the proposed takeover moves ahead. Committee members stressed that the interests of members, employees and other stakeholders should be protected before any decision affecting the club is implemented, news agency PTI reported.
Also read |
The committee highlighted that it has been handling the club’s affairs for more than four years after assuming charge under a National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order dated April 1, 2022. During this period, it claimed to have focused on restoring administrative discipline and improving the club’s financial condition.
According to the committee, the club’s finances showed a significant turnaround under its tenure. It said the projected profit and loss statement for 2023-24 reflected a profit of ₹9.25 crore, compared to a loss of ₹12.39 crore in 2021-22. The committee noted that this improvement came despite the club not adding any new memberships, which had earlier been a major source of revenue.
What triggered the controversy?
The Centre has directed the Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its Safdarjung Road premises by June 5, saying the land is required for “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure” and other public security needs in Lutyens’ Delhi, an area that houses several key government and defence establishments.
The order was issued by the Land and Development Office (L&DO) under the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry. The move has sharply divided opinion online and within Delhi’s social circles. To capture both sides of the debate, we speak to critics and supporters of the club
Administrative reforms and digitisation efforts
The committee also pointed to a series of administrative reforms introduced over the past few years. It said standard operating procedures had been implemented across departments and pending litigation, including labour disputes, had been reduced.
Another major task undertaken during this period, according to the committee, was the digitisation and updating of membership records. It claimed that nearly 43 per cent of the records were unavailable in 2022, making the exercise necessary for smoother functioning.
The committee further underlined that members appointed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) had been working in an honorary capacity, without receiving sitting fees, reimbursements or financial benefits.
At the same time, the committee argued that relocating the club would involve heavy expenditure because the infrastructure and facilities currently in place have been developed over several decades.
Members oppose proposed move
The issue also triggered strong reactions from club members, who held a meeting on Monday and described the proposed takeover as “illegal”. Members raised concerns over what they called selective action against the institution and argued that “similar clubs should get similar treatment”.
They also rejected the perception that the club was an illegitimate occupant of public land. According to members, the premises continue to serve as an active space for sports, recreation and cultural activities used by thousands of members and their families.
A member of the general committee said discussions were continuing with officials from the L&DO and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in an effort to prevent the takeover.
“We are in regular conversation with the L&DO and officials in the Urban Development Ministry. We are trying our best to ensure that the club continues at its present location,” he said.
The member added that the committee was also trying to secure protection for nearly 600 employees associated with the club if relocation eventually takes place.
Members further argued that the long waiting list for memberships reflected the institution’s popularity rather than any illegitimacy. They called for governance reforms instead of shutting down or displacing the club.
Established in 1913, the Delhi Gymkhana Club is regarded by its members as one of the capital’s oldest sporting and social institutions, carrying heritage value that extends beyond the commercial worth of the land it occupies.
(With PTI inputs)
-
-
-
-
