The Supreme Court on Monday directed a Maharashtra authority to respond to a man's plea for initiating contempt action against it after he and his family members were booked by the police and his properties were demolished for allegedly raising anti-India slogans during a cricket match.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih issued the notice and posted the hearing after four weeks.
The petitioner, who hails from Sindhudurg district in the state, has claimed his house and shop were demolished on February 24 following an FIR against him, his wife and his 14-year-old son for allegedly raising anti-India slogans during the India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match, which India won the previous day.
The plea, filed by Kitabulla Hamidulla Khan, sought directions for initiating contempt proceedings against the chief officer and administrator of the Malvan Municipal Council arguing the action was in violation of the apex court's November 13, 2024, verdict on demolition of properties.
The top court judgment laid down pan-India guidelines and barred demolition of properties without a prior showcause notice and 15 days' time to the aggrieved party to respond.
The plea, filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, said the case illustrated an "egregious contempt" aside from how the state machinery violated the guidelines with impunity.
The FIR alleged at around 9.15 pm when the complainant was going to his friend's house, the petitioner's son raised an anti-India slogan while watching the cricket match, the plea said.
The petitioner and his minor son were taken to the police station at midnight and the boy was allowed to go after four-five hours, it added.
While the petitioner and his wife were sent to jail, the plea said the authorities on February 24, demolished his tin shed scrap shop and house calling them illegal structures.
"The action of the civic authorities is arbitrary, illegal, and mala fide. It is relevant to note that in the process of demolition, the municipal officers also damaged a vehicle of the petitioner," it added.
Though the man and his wife were granted bail on February 25 by a judicial magistrate, the plea said the chain of events clearly depicted the demolition action 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," it claimed.
The right to housing or shelter is a fundamental right as held by the apex court in several judgments and forms an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the plea added.
"The State and its officials cannot take arbitrary and excessive measures against the accused or the convict without following the due process as sanctioned by law," the plea said.
Saying the bulldozer demolishing a building was a "chilling sight" especially when the authorities failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and acted without adhering to the principle of due process, the plea called it a "lawless state of affairs".
The petitioner, therefore, sought a direction to the authority and its officials concerned to restore the petitioner's property and pay "exemplary compensation" to him.
The plea also sought prosecution of those responsible for the demolition and violating the directions of the apex court.
While passing the verdict on demolition of properties, the apex court on November 2024 clarified the directions won't apply to unauthorised structures in a public spaces such as roads, streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines or a river or water bodies apart from cases where there was a court order for demolition.
© 2025