Supreme Court Scrutinizes Arbitrary Property Demolition in Controversial Maharashtra Case

Last Updated on March 25, 2025 by Amit Patra

In an unfortunate reminder of the fine divide between administrative function and constitutional safeguard, the Supreme Court has strongly condemned the municipal council’s outlined bulldozing of a Muslim family’s property in the face of due process and human rights.

A Malvan, Maharashtra case, where a family’s house and shop overnight were brought down by municipal authorities allegedly on the basis of an FIR lodged for raising anti-India slogans during a cricket match, is the matter at hand. Justice BR Gavai, taking notice along with Justice AG Masih, pointed out to the municipal authorities the give-or-take violation of its own guidelines issued on property demolition back in November of 2024.

The testimony of the applicants tells a terrible story: his minor son, after being so identified, was attacked by drunkards. The family subsequently became the victims of harassment after the filing of a retaliatory FIR. The demolition in question, staged in front of about two hundred onlookers, seems to be a punitive exercise and not one of an administrative variety at all.

Before the Court are its November guidelines which bar demolition actions except when:

• There is first a show-cause notice.
• There is then a personal hearing.
• The proceedings are recorded in the minutes.
• Finally, reasons are given for that extreme action to be taken.

The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has already spoken of a number of procedural violations, asserting that there could be an infringement of the very rule of law itself. The petitioner has demanded compensation of 15 lakhs while also asking for contempt proceedings along with criminal prosecution of the offenders.

This is an important initiative of the Supreme Court. Through a notice, it has ensured its duty to the citizens against arbitrary action by the state, especially against classes vulnerable to civil society. The case fortifies the strength of the judiciary to forestall executive misconduct and ensure that administrative action respects constitutional reason and natural justice.

The selective nature of the demolition raised suspicion against the civic authorities, since only the petitioner’s properties were demolished, while the other buildings in the vicinity were unaffected.

The case will be on the test for a landmark judgment on administrative accountability and protection of individual rights against seemingly discriminatory government action. The Supreme Court ruling could set a precedent for municipal authorities regarding demolitions and the respect of due process.