Supreme Court Refuses Contempt Plea on Alleged Illegal Demolitions in Gujarat, Directs Petitioner to Approach High Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently refused to entertain a contempt petition alleging illegal demolition of houses belonging to accused individuals in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The petition, filed by Mujahid Nafees, claimed that the demolition was carried out in violation of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated November 13, 2024, which laid down specific guidelines for demolitions. A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih directed the petitioner to approach the Gujarat High Court for relief, emphasizing that it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to monitor similar cases across the country.

Background of the Case

The controversy arose after authorities in Ahmedabad demolished the houses of persons accused of crimes without following due process. The petitioner claimed that this action was in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines, which mandate prior notice, personal hearings, and opportunities for appeal before any demolition.

According to reports, the demolition was linked to an altercation involving local photographer Saddamuddin Sheikh and his cousin Sohail in December 2024. The incident led to the filing of an FIR under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Gujarat Police Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Following this, a Bapunagar Municipal Councilor reportedly wrote to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, demanding action against the accused individuals by demolishing their properties. The very next day, authorities carried out the demolition in collaboration with the Ahmedabad Police.

Supreme Court’s Stand on Demolitions Without Due Process

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on November 13, 2024, categorically stated that the executive could not demolish properties solely on the ground that the owners were accused or convicted in a criminal case. The Court had issued a set of mandatory guidelines, including:

1. Prior Show Cause Notice – No demolition should take place without a notice returnable within the time prescribed by local municipal laws or at least 15 days.
2. Opportunity for Personal Hearing – Authorities must conduct a hearing, record the minutes, and issue a reasoned order. The order should assess whether the construction is compoundable and whether demolition is the only recourse.
3. Time for Appeal – Affected parties must be given adequate time to challenge demolition orders before an appropriate forum.

The Court also warned that any violation of these directions would lead to contempt proceedings and that responsible officers could be held personally liable for restitution of the demolished property, along with damages.

Arguments in the Contempt Petition

The petitioner contended that the Ahmedabad authorities had blatantly ignored these guidelines. The main arguments presented before the Court included:

• No prior show cause notice was issued to the accused persons before their houses were demolished.
• There was no personal hearing or opportunity to contest the demolition.
• The demolition appeared to be a punitive action rather than a lawful municipal exercise.
• The Bapunagar Municipal Councilor’s letter to the Ahmedabad Municipal Commissioner explicitly stated that the demolitions were meant to “teach a lesson” to the accused, reflecting mala fide intent.

Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court chose not to entertain the petition, directing the petitioner to seek redress from the Gujarat High Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Order

While refusing to entertain the petition, the Supreme Court bench noted that similar cases were pending across various states. Justice BR Gavai remarked that it would be difficult for the apex court to monitor all such instances nationwide. The bench emphasized that the Gujarat High Court was the appropriate forum for the matter.

However, acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns, the Supreme Court requested the Gujarat High Court to dispose of the case expeditiously if approached. The Court’s order stated:

“We are not inclined to entertain the present petition in this Court. We, however, permit the petitioner to approach the High Court in pursuance of our directions… we request the High Court that in the event the petitioner approaches the High Court, the grievance of the petitioner shall be attended expeditiously.”

Legal and Social Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision to direct the petitioner to the High Court underscores the judiciary’s stance on federalism and judicial hierarchy. While the apex court’s November 13 ruling set a precedent, its reluctance to micromanage individual demolition cases highlights the importance of state-level adjudication.

This case also raises critical legal and human rights concerns:

1. Due Process Violation – If the allegations are true, the demolition of properties without notice and hearings is a clear violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 300A (Right to Property) of the Indian Constitution.
2. Judicial Accountability – The case tests whether the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines are being implemented effectively.
3. Political and Administrative Bias – The involvement of local municipal officials and police in punitive demolitions raises concerns about the misuse of executive power for extrajudicial punishment.

Next Steps and Expected Developments

With the case now likely to proceed in the Gujarat High Court, key developments to watch include:

• Whether the High Court finds the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation guilty of contempt.
• Possible directions for restitution or compensation for affected individuals.
• Further clarifications on the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines.

Additionally, if the petitioner appeals further, the Supreme Court may eventually revisit its stance, especially if multiple High Courts issue conflicting rulings on similar cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the contempt petition in the Gujarat demolition case shifts the legal battle to the state judiciary. While the ruling reaffirms the importance of following due process, it also raises concerns about the enforcement of judicial guidelines on demolitions. As the case unfolds in the Gujarat High Court, it will serve as a crucial test of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights and ensuring accountability in executive actions.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-7I