Delhi High Court questions Centre on bungalow allocation
New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has raised strong concerns over the process of government bungalow allotments after a plea was filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) seeking official accommodation for its national convenor and former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Hearing the matter on Thursday, Justice Sachin Datta observed that such allotments cannot be left to arbitrary discretion. “There has to be a transparent mechanism and it cannot be purely on your whims,” the judge stated. He asked the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and the Directorate of Estates to clarify how priority is determined when demand exceeds availability.
The court directed the Joint Secretary of the Ministry and the Director of Estates to appear virtually at the next hearing scheduled for September 25.
Centre’s reply and current status
During the hearing, the Centre’s counsel informed the court that the Type VII bungalow at 35, Lodhi Estate—proposed for Kejriwal—had already been allotted on July 24 to Pankaj Chaudhary, Union Minister of State for Finance.
The judge pressed for details about the process followed in such cases. “How priority is taken into account, sequence of allotment?… Assuming there is a limited number of bungalows, how do you decide?” Justice Datta asked. He emphasized that the larger issue concerns ensuring a clear policy to avoid the perception of favoritism.
AAP’s plea for fair accommodation
The Aam Aadmi Party argued that as a former chief minister, Kejriwal was entitled to adequate official housing. Party representatives stressed that denial of a bungalow reflected bias and undermined democratic fairness.
AAP leaders also alleged that Kejriwal, who resigned as chief minister earlier this year, has been treated differently from other former leaders. The party demanded a uniform and transparent system to prevent selective treatment.
Broader implications of the case
The court’s remarks have highlighted a long-debated issue: the lack of clarity in government housing allotments. Successive governments have faced criticism over the discretionary nature of the process, where political affiliation often appears to influence decisions.
Observers believe that this case could set a precedent by compelling the Centre to establish a publicly verifiable framework. If the court insists on transparency, it may lead to a uniform housing policy that applies equally to serving and former officials.
Political reactions and next steps
The ruling has triggered sharp political reactions. AAP leaders welcomed the court’s intervention, calling it a step toward accountability. Opposition parties have also echoed concerns over arbitrariness, while government supporters argue that housing resources are limited and must prioritize current office-bearers.
The next hearing on September 25 will determine whether the court presses the Centre for a detailed written policy. Legal experts say the case could strengthen institutional checks on executive discretion in matters of privilege and entitlement.