The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has responded to the Supreme Court's notice concerning its office premises located at Rouse Avenue in Delhi. The party has emphatically denied allegations of encroachment, asserting that the office was lawfully allotted to them by the Government of NCT of Delhi in 2015.

According to the AAP's application filed before the apex court, the party highlighted that the allotment of the office space was in strict accordance with its entitlement as a State Party at that time. The allotment, made on December 31, 2015, for its State Unit Office, adhered to the Office Memorandum dated October 14, 2015. Furthermore, the party underscored that the notice of cancellation of this allotment was set aside by the Delhi High Court through an order dated August 23, 2017.

The Supreme Court had expressed concerns about the AAP office being built on land originally allotted to the Delhi High Court. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, took note of the issue while addressing a broader case concerning judicial infrastructure across the country.

AAP, in its application, sought intervention in the matter and urged the court to hear its side before passing any directives. The party clarified that the allotment of office space is a crucial aspect of public funding for elections in India, designed to level the electoral playing field.

Citing the Policy Guidelines for Allotment of Land to Political Parties of 2012 issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO), Government of India, AAP asserted its entitlement to two office spaces in Delhi—one for its national unit and another for its Delhi State unit. The party emphasized that, as of now, it has been allotted space only for its Delhi State Unit, and there is no question of encroachment on land duly allotted in 2015.

While AAP acknowledged the necessity of judicial infrastructure for the welfare of Delhi's citizens, it expressed a willingness to relocate its State unit office to an appropriate alternative space. However, the party insisted on the lack of clarity regarding why due diligence was not exercised by the L&DO in examining the pre-existing status of the land and its vacancy.

Case: Malik Mazhar Sultan vs Union of India.