Supreme Court Issues Notice To Maharashtra Officer In Contempt Plea Against House Demolition Over 'Anti-India' Slogans After Indo-Pak Match

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a contempt petition alleging the demolition of a Muslim man's house and shop in Maharashtra without prior notice, in violation of the Court's November 13 judgment in the bulldozer matter.

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

Briefly put, the petition is filed by the Muslim man claiming that his house and shop were demolished by authorities as a punitive measure, after an FIR was registered against him and his wife following an incident involving his 14-yr old minor son. In the FIR, the petitioner's family was accused of levelling anti-India slogans on the day of a match between India and Pakistan during the Champions Trophy tournament last month.

Opposing the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner says that his minor son was assaulted by 2 drunk men after they learnt that he belonged to a minority community. Later, these men came to the petitioner's house and apologized. However, subsequently, about 30-40 persons came and beat up the family.

Immediately after the incident, it is mentioned, that the petitioner's house and shop were demolished by civic authorities without any prior notice on the alleged ground of their being "illegal" structures. The action was punitive and in violation of the Court's November 13 judgment, the petitioner claims.

Supreme Court order alleged to have been violated

On November 13, the Supreme Court held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime. A set of guidelines - to be followed before demolition - were issued by the Court. These included -

(i) No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in the local municipal laws or within 15 days time from the date of service, whichever is later.

(ii) Designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the aggrieved party. The minutes of such a hearing shall be recorded. The final order of authority shall contain contentions of noticee, the findings of the authority and reasons, as to whether the unauthorized construction is compoundable, and whether the whole construction is to be demolished. The order should specify why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available.

(iii) After the orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before the appropriate forum.

The Court also held that violation of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution. If a demolition is found to be in violation of the orders of the Court, the officers responsible will be held liable for restitution of the demolished property at their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.

Further, the Court clarified that that the directions would not be applicable if the unauthorized structure was in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway lines or any river body or water body and also in cases where there is an order passed by a Court of law.

What does the contempt petition say?

The petitioner states that on the intervening night of 23.02.2025 and 24.02.2025, an FIR was lodged at PS Malvan, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra against the petitioner, his wife and their 14-yr old son under Sections 131, 196(1)(a), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(c) and 3(5) of the BNS.

In the FIR, it was alleged that when the complainant was going to his friend's house, petitioner's 14 yr old son shouted an anti-India slogan while watching a cricket match. Subsequently, the complainant flagged the same to the petitioner and his wife, but they also allegedly raised anti-India slogans. This led the complainant to give information to his friend who reached the site with 10-15 persons. 

The petitioner, however, claims that his minor son had gone to buy chips from a shop near a liquor shop, when 2 drunk persons slapped and beat him upon learning that he belonged to a minority community. Later, the 2 persons came to the petitioner's house and apologized but subsequently, a group of 30-40 persons came and assaulted his family. Following this incident, the petitioner and his minor son were taken to the police station, where the petitioner was threatened to accept the charges.

While the minor son was let go, it is the petitioner's claim that his wife was taken into custody by authorities. At some point, a local ruling party MLA wrote to the civic authorities to take immediate action against the petitioner and his family. On 24.02.2025, "in the presence of about 200 people", civic authorities demolished the tin shed shop and house of the petitioner on the alleged ground of it being an “illegal structure”.

The petitioner avers that the action of the civic authorities was arbitrary, illegal, and malafide. He points out that in the process of demolition, the municipal officers also damaged a vehicle belonging to him. Further, after the demolition, the petitioner's house and shop were looted by persons who had gathered there, due to which he suffered a loss of about 15 lakhs. The petitioner also highlights that in a media byte given by the respondent(s) after the demolition, it was admitted that no prior notice was given.

It is further the petitioner's allegation that as a punitive measure, the civic authorities also demolished the scrap shop of his brother, only on account of his being related to the petitioner and his family. He underlines that the police's request for custodial interrogation in his case was rejected by the Magistrate, noting, "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 infact also granted bail, however, subject to stringent conditions.

The petition mentions that the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has taken suo motu cognizance of the case, observing in its order, “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 the democratic governance, is violated in the process”.

It is stressed that the demolition action in the present case was punitive. "the time gap between the Petitioner and his family members being arraigned as an accused and demolition of the scrap shop and home makes it apparent that the punishment of demolition inflicted by the Respondent contemnor and other officials was inflicted on account of them being arraigned as an accused in a frivolous case filed by the complainant", the petitioner states.

As per claims, in the vicinity of the subject property, there were several pakka and kachha houses along with a motor garage, however, only the construction belonging to the petitioner and his brother was demolished.

Besides initiation of contempt action, the petitioner prays that the authorities furnish "Demolition Report" and "Inspection Report" as ought to be prepared by them in terms of the Court's November 13 judgment. He also seeks prosecution of the officials responsible as well as exemplary compensation for the losses incurred.

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

Also Read - Supreme Court Issues Notice To UP Authorities In Contempt Petition Over Part-Demolition Of Mosque; Stays Further Demolition