Introduction:

In the aftermath of the communal violence that erupted in Nagpur on March 17, 2025, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) found itself under judicial scrutiny for demolishing properties of individuals accused in the riots without adhering to the procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court. The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench, led by Justice Nitin Sambre, took cognizance of petitions filed by affected individuals, including Jehrunissa Shamim Khan, whose two-storey house was demolished. The court’s intervention highlighted the importance of due process and the rule of law, especially in sensitive situations involving communal tensions.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners contended that the NMC’s actions were arbitrary and violated the Supreme Court’s directives issued on November 13, 2024, in the case of “In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.” They argued that the demolitions were carried out without issuing proper notices or providing adequate time for response, thus infringing upon their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners emphasized that the demolitions appeared to be punitive measures targeting individuals accused in the riots, without any judicial determination of guilt.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The NMC, in its defense, submitted an affidavit through Executive Engineer (Slums) Kamlesh Chavan, stating that the civic body was unaware of the Supreme Court’s guidelines due to the absence of circulars or directives from the Maharashtra government or the NMC’s Town Planning Department. The affidavit claimed that the demolitions were conducted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and were based on the lack of sanctioned plans for the structures in question. The NMC maintained that there was no malafide intention and that the actions were taken in accordance with prevailing statutory provisions.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bombay High Court expressed strong disapproval of the NMC’s actions, labeling them as “high-handed” and in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directives. The court noted that the demolitions were carried out despite the petitioners challenging the notices and seeking urgent relief. The bench emphasized that the executive cannot assume the role of the judiciary by punishing individuals through property demolitions without due process. The court stayed further demolitions and directed the state government to file a response, reinforcing the principle that adherence to legal procedures is paramount, even in situations involving communal unrest.