Supreme Court Issues Notice To Assam Chief Secretary Over Goalpara Demolition Drive
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a plea seeking contempt action against the Assam Chief Secretary and other officials for allegedly conducting a mass eviction and demolition drive in Goalpara's Hasila Beel in violation of the apex court guidelines.
A bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, sought responses of Chief Secretary Ravi Kota, Principal Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, Goalpara's District Commissioner Khanindra Choudhury, Goalpara's Superintendent of Police Nabaneet Mahanta, and other officials in the matter.
"Issue notice, returnable in two weeks. [P]ersonal presence of the alleged contemnnor(s) is dispensed with, until further orders," ordered the Bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
As per the plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, no sufficient time or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in an "arbitrary and high-handed manner" a notice was issued to remove their houses, structures, shops, buildings and crops within two days.
"The houses, crops, properties, belongings, etc. of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have all been demolished in the eviction and demolition exercise."
The petitioners, claiming to be landless, said that their forefathers had to settle in the Hasila Beel revenue village of Balijana Revenue Circle about 50 to 60 years ago after losing their houses and land due to the riverbank erosion of the river Brahmaputra.
The plea said that the eviction and demolition exercise was carried out without granting a personal hearing and without providing adequate time for appeal or judicial review, in blatant violation of the guidelines issued in the case titled "In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures".
In November last year, a bench of then Justice Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan laid down pan-India directives governing demolitions of unauthorised structures.
The top court had cautioned that flouting its directions by state authorities will result in criminal contempt and prosecution.
Issuing a slew of directions under Article 142 of the Constitution, the apex court said that no demolition will be carried out without a prior show-cause notice. It added that the demolition order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days and will be displayed on a designated digital portal to be maintained by every municipal and local authority. The Supreme Court had clarified that its directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place, such as a road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a minute ago
- The Hindu
President reference ‘misleading', wants SC to sit on appeal against its own verdict in TN Governor case: Kerala to SC
The State of Kerala on Monday (July 28, 2025) urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether judiciary can fix timelines for the President and State Governors to clear State Bills, saying it is a ruse to make the apex court sit in appeal of its own authoritative pronouncement in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. The Constitution, the State said, does not allow the apex court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction in the court through a Presidential Reference. The State said the Reference was 'misleading' and 'suppressed facts'. Kerala, represented by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and C.K. Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the apex court. Quoting judicial precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the State said powers of the Governors and the President under Article 200 and 201 of the Constitution have been the subject of three separate authoritative judgments in the cases filed by the States of Telangana, Punjab and, finally, Tamil Nadu on April 8. 'When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law or the same is res integra so as to require the President to know what the true position of law on the question is. The decision of this court on a question of law is binding on all courts and authorities. Hence, the President can refer a question of law only when this court has not decided it,' Kerala submitted. The State pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala on April 8 has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the Presidential Reference in May. If the government wanted to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative petition in the apex court, and not take the route of Presidential Reference, Kerala said. The State argued the very fact the government has not sought a review of the April 8 judgment, establishing it as settled law. 'The Union of India has not filed any review or curative petition against the judgment delivered by the court in the Tamil Nadu case, and has thus accepted the judgment…The judgment, having not been assailed or set aside in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141, and cannot be challenged obliquely in collateral proceedings such as in the instant reference. The President and the Council of Ministers have to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution,' the State of Kerala reasoned. EOM
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a minute ago
- Business Standard
SC stays PMLA trial as chargesheet in predicate case pending for 7 yrs
The Supreme Court has stayed a trial against four women accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) because a chargesheet in the original criminal case has not been filed even after seven years, Live Law reported. The order came from a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, after hearing arguments by Senior Advocate PB Suresh. He appeared for the petitioners and pointed out that they were not named in the original offence (called the predicate offence). He questioned how the PMLA trial could proceed when no chargesheet had been filed in that base case. While staying the trial for the four petitioners, the Supreme Court also issued notices to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Indian Bank, which is the complainant in the original case. What is the case? In 2018, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating), Section 468 (forgery), and Section 471 (using forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code. This was based on a complaint by Indian Bank against Cethar Limited and others, the news report said. Following this, the Enforcement Directorate filed a money laundering case (ECIR) based on the same FIR, which brought the petitioners under investigation. The four women approached the trial court asking to be discharged from the PMLA case, but their plea was rejected. They then filed a criminal revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Madras High Court. Left with no other option, they approached the Supreme Court. What did the petitioners say? All four petitioners are women and family members of the former Chairman and Managing Director of Cethar Limited. They claim they had no role in the company's financial or operational decisions. According to petitioners, they have been accused only because of their relationship with the former MD. They also pointed out that they are not named in the original FIR by the CBI and that there is no proof showing they received or controlled any "proceeds of crime". Despite this, their jewellery and other belongings have been seized, and the company itself is now under liquidation, Live Law reported. Similar cases cited To support their plea, the petitioners referred to the Telangana High Court's decision in Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs Directorate of Enforcement. In that case, the high court had paused the PMLA trial until the main case (predicate offence) was decided by the special court. That case involved alleged bribery and irregular allotment of mining leases to Bharathi Cement Corporation, linked to the Andhra Pradesh government. The ED had filed a money laundering case against the company and others, including Bharathi Reddy, wife of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy. While the case had reached the Supreme Court, it was later withdrawn at the ED's request.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a minute ago
- Business Standard
Sonia, Kharge, Rahul, Akhilesh join Oppn leaders in protest against SIR
Several MPs of the INDIA bloc parties, including Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge and Congress parliamentary party chairperson Sonia Gandhi, protested in the Parliament House complex on Monday against the Election Commission's voter roll revision in Bihar, and demanded its rollback. Ahead of the day's proceedings in Parliament, top opposition MPs, including Sonia Gandhi, Kharge, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Samajwadi Party's Akhilesh Yadav, TMC's Derek O'Brien and Sagarika Ghose, DMK's Kanimozhi and A Raja, besides others, raised slogans and protested against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. There was a huge banner in front of them which read 'SIR- Attack on Democracy' as they lined up on and near the steps of the Makar Dwar of Parliament and staged a protest for the fifth consecutive day. With 'Stop SIR' placards in hand, several MPs of the opposition, including those of the Congress, DMK, TMC, Samajwadi Party, RJD and Left parties, participated in the protest and raised slogans. The opposition has been protesting in both Houses of Parliament against the SIR, alleging the EC's exercise was aimed at "disenfranchising voters" in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections. They have been demanding a discussion on the issue in both Houses. On Friday, several MPs of the INDIA bloc parties, including Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, had held an unusual protest in the Parliament House complex against the voter roll revision in Bihar by tearing posters with 'SIR' written on them and putting them in a 'disposal bin'. They had also staged a protest march in the complex, demanding the rollback as well as a discussion on the issue in both Houses. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
