Who gets Delhi’s Ramlila grounds? HC questions DDA’s ‘first come, first served’ policy, seeks allotment guidelines

The Delhi High Court reportedly held that Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) “first come, first serve” policy for allotment of public grounds for Ramlila and similar cultural or religious events is arbitrary and cannot be judicially accepted.

“The determinacy of a criterion and its inherent rationality are two distinct questions. Consequently, the policy of 'first come first serve' does not find favour with this Court...,” the Court said, as per Live Law.

According to the report, Justice Amit Mahajan observed that a mechanically determinable policy is not necessarily constitutionally reasonable or in consonance with public policy.

The bench also noted that such a policy could create unequal opportunities for applicants, particularly where the booking process and applicable criteria have not been publicly disclosed in advance.

The foundation also sought cancellation of the allotment made in favour of another organisation and a direction for allotment of the ground to itself.

According to the report, the foundation had organised the festival at the site in 2023 and 2024. It submitted that under the DDA's Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated September 01, societies that had booked the respective Ramlila sites in two out of the preceding three years were entitled to preference for booking the same site.

The authorities, however, rejected its application, saying that another applicant had applied earlier, on April 10, whereas the foundation's application was received on May 27.

The authorities relied on the High Level Coordination Committee (HLCC) guidelines, under which allotment was stated to be governed by the first-come-first-served principle.

The court further observed that the policy incentivised applicants to discover the availability of public grounds before others, potentially giving an advantage to persons with privileged access to administrative information.

“Even without actual favouritism, uncertainty about the opening of a booking process can create unequal opportunities to secure the earliest position,” the court was quoted by Live Law as saying.

It added that the problem becomes particularly acute when public authorities receive applications before publishing the governing policy, subsequently change the booking procedure, or rely on different procedures maintained by different departments.

The high court declined to grant immediate relief to the foundation, noting that the festivities were about to commence and cancellation of the existing allotment was not feasible.

It directed the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board to frame comprehensive annual guidelines for allotment of grounds for Ramlila and similar cultural or religious events.

It said that the directions were prospective and would not retrospectively alter the terms of the policy applicable to the 2026 season or predetermine the rights of any applicant under that policy.

The Delhi High Court issued the following directions:

1. The competent authority must publish an annual site-allocation notice at least 90 days before the first scheduled event, identifying available grounds, booking dates, eligibility conditions, restrictions, charges and evaluation criteria.

2. All applications for a particular site and booking period should ordinarily be received within the same predetermined application window.

3. Any site remaining unallocated after the initial process should be notified afresh through a supplementary application window open to all eligible applicants.

4. All applications must undergo a common eligibility assessment, including verification of the applicant's authority to represent the organisation and compliance with registration and documentation requirements.

5. Applicants may be required to submit site-specific operational plans covering crowd capacity, safety arrangements, emergency response, fire and electrical safety, sanitation, traffic and parking management, accessibility, waste removal and restoration of the ground.

6. Where multiple eligible applicants compete for the same site, the authorities should conduct a comparative assessment using a predetermined and published scoring matrix or other published criteria.

7. Previous organisers with satisfactory compliance records may receive limited preference, but must not enjoy an automatic right to allotment. Where competing eligible applicants exist, such preference cannot extend beyond two consecutive years, and competing claims must be assessed on merit.

8. The policy must provide an adequate mechanism for grievance redressal, with the annual timetable ensuring that allotment and the ordinary grievance process are completed sufficiently before the event begins.

(With inputs from Live Law)

About the Author