The Supreme Court of India recently refused to entertain a petition that challenged demolition actions allegedly carried out by Ahmedabad authorities against the homes of individuals accused of crimes. The petitioner claimed that these actions violated the Supreme Court’s guidelines issued on November 13 regarding demolitions.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and directed the petitioner to approach the Gujarat High Court for appropriate relief. The bench noted that similar petitions had been filed previously, and in those cases, petitioners were also directed to seek recourse from jurisdictional High Courts. The Court expressed its reluctance to monitor such cases on a nationwide scale.

Supreme Court’s Directive to the High Court

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, representing the petitioner, requested the Supreme Court to issue directions for an expedited hearing in the High Court. Taking note of this, the bench included in its order a request that the High Court handle the matter swiftly.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Affirms Equal Opportunities for Disabled Legal Professionals

Quote from the Court’s Order:

"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."

Alleged Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines

The petition claimed that Ahmedabad authorities demolished the homes of individuals accused in a criminal case without following due legal process. The petitioner argued that this action contravened the Supreme Court’s judgment dated November 13, which explicitly laid down procedural safeguards before any demolition could take place. The Supreme Court had ruled that:

• No demolition should be carried out without issuing a prior show-cause notice, allowing the accused to respond within the timeframe prescribed by local municipal laws or 15 days, whichever is later.
• The designated authority must provide an opportunity for a personal hearing to the affected parties, with recorded minutes detailing their contentions and the authority’s findings.
• The demolition order should specify whether the unauthorized structure is compoundable and justify why demolition is the only option.
• After a demolition order is passed, the affected party must be given time to challenge the order before the appropriate legal forum.

The Court had also warned that violating these guidelines could result in contempt proceedings and prosecution. If a demolition was found to be unlawful, responsible officers would be personally liable for restoring the demolished property and compensating the affected parties.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi's Plea to Quash Gujarat FIR

Quote from Supreme Court Judgment:

"Violation of these directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution. Officers responsible will be held liable for restitution of the demolished property at their personal cost in addition to payment of damages."

Background of the Contempt Petition

The controversy began after a criminal case was registered against certain individuals following a December incident. The case involved a brawl where a group allegedly confronted a local photographer, Saddamuddin Sheikh, and his cousin Sohail, seeking information about Saddamuddin’s brother Salman, a convict who had absconded after jumping parole.

Following the altercation, an FIR was filed at the Bapunagar Police Station under various provisions, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Gujarat Police Act, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984.

On December 20, 2024, a municipal councilor from Bapunagar wrote to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s Commissioner, urging the removal of the accused persons' constructions as a punitive measure. The next day, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, in collaboration with the local police, conducted a demolition drive to allegedly clear encroachments by "antisocial elements."

The petition alleged that no prior notice was issued to the house owners before their properties were demolished. The petitioner sought action against the authorities, arguing that the demolitions were illegal and violated Supreme Court orders.

Case Title: MUJAHID NAFEES Versus PANKAJ JOSHI AND ORS., Diary No. 6547-2025