The Supreme Court has issued a notice on a contempt petition alleging that the house and shop of a Muslim man in Maharashtra were demolished without prior notice. The demolition reportedly occurred after an FIR was registered against him and his wife, based on allegations related to anti-India slogans during an India-Pakistan cricket match.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order after hearing Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, who represented the petitioner. The notice has been issued to Santosh Jirage, the chief officer and administrator of Malvan municipal council in Sindhudurg.

Background of the Case

The petitioner alleges that his house and shop were demolished as a punitive action following a police complaint. The complaint stemmed from an incident where his 14-year-old son was accused of shouting anti-India slogans during the recent Champions Trophy tournament match between India and Pakistan. The petitioner, however, claims that his son was attacked by two intoxicated men who later apologized, but the situation escalated when a mob of 30-40 individuals assaulted their family.

Following this incident, authorities demolished the petitioner's house and shop, allegedly citing illegal construction, without issuing a prior notice. The petitioner contends that this action violated the Supreme Court’s judgment from November 13, which established guidelines prohibiting punitive demolitions.

Also Read - Supreme Court Criticizes UP Government for Rapid Demolition, Allows Reconstruction

In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that authorities cannot demolish properties solely because their owners are accused or convicted of crimes. The Court outlined key guidelines, including:

"No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice, returnable within the time specified by local municipal laws or at least within 15 days of service, whichever is later."

"The designated authority must provide the affected party with a personal hearing, record the minutes of the hearing, and issue a detailed order specifying why demolition is the only option."

"Affected parties must be granted time to challenge the demolition order before the appropriate legal forum."

Additionally, the Supreme Court warned that any violation of these directives would lead to contempt proceedings and could hold responsible officials personally liable for restoring the demolished properties and paying damages.

The petitioner claims that on the night of February 23-24, 2025, an FIR was lodged against him, his wife, and his son under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complaint alleged that the minor shouted an anti-India slogan while watching a cricket match, and when confronted by a passerby, the petitioner and his wife also joined in.

However, the petitioner states that his son had merely gone to buy chips near a liquor store when he was assaulted by two intoxicated men who later apologized. The situation escalated when a mob of 30-40 individuals attacked their home, leading to his family being taken to the police station. He alleges that he was pressured to accept the charges while his wife was taken into custody.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Contempt Petition Filed Against Punjab Officials Over Farmers' Eviction

Adding to the controversy, a local MLA reportedly wrote to the municipal authorities demanding immediate action against the petitioner. The next day, in the presence of nearly 200 people, civic authorities demolished the petitioner’s house and shop on the grounds of being "illegal structures."

The petitioner argues that the demolition was not only arbitrary and illegal but also carried out in bad faith. He asserts that the municipal officers intentionally damaged his vehicle during the process and that his demolished property was looted by bystanders, resulting in a loss of approximately ₹15 lakh.

Furthermore, the petitioner alleges that his brother’s scrap shop was also demolished merely due to their family connection. He points out that despite the police’s request for custodial interrogation, the magistrate refused, stating:

"There is nothing on record which prima facie shows that the alleged act of the accused person was detrimental to the nation's integration."

The petitioner and his wife were later granted bail, though under stringent conditions.

The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has also intervened, taking suo motu cognizance of the case. In its order, the Commission observed:

"The reading of the news item prima facie reflects that the due process of law has not been followed for demolition of the structure. The principles of rule of law, which is the very foundation of democratic governance, are violated in the process."

The petitioner maintains that the demolition was a form of punishment rather than a legitimate civic action. He emphasizes that several houses and shops in the area, including permanent structures, were left untouched, while only his property and his brother’s shop were targeted.

Given these facts, the petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to:

• Initiate contempt proceedings against the responsible officials.
• Direct the municipal authorities to furnish a "Demolition Report" and "Inspection Report" as per the Supreme Court's November 13 guidelines.
• Order the prosecution of officials involved.
• Grant exemplary compensation for his financial losses.

Case Title: KITABULLA HAMIDULLA KHAN Versus SANTOSH JIRAGE, Diary No. 14670-2025

Also Read - Supreme Court Criticizes UP Government for Rapid Demolition, Allows Reconstruction