Back
Slams 's "Shocking" Defense Over Dr. Ambedkar's Midnight Press Demolition
In a stern rebuke, the labeled a affidavit as "thoughtless" and "shocking" for justifying inaction during the unlawful midnight demolition of the Buddha Bhushan Printing Press—a historic site founded by Dr. BR Ambedkar in 1945. A division bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, on April 30, 2026, directed the Commissioner to personally file a detailed reply, bypassing subordinates, amid allegations of collusion and negligence.
The Historic Site Under Siege: Roots in Dr. Ambedkar's Legacy
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar purchased two plots in Dadar, Mumbai, with his personal funds in 1930. By 1945, he established a trust on one plot, erecting the Buddha Bhushan Printing Press alongside Yashodhara Sanganak Kendra and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Bhavan. These structures symbolized Dalit history and social justice efforts, housing Ambedkar's personally acquired machines, the Panchshil Flag, handwritten documents from 1910-1956, and rare manuscripts.
Trustee disputes escalated, leading to a allegedly fabricated structural audit. Respondents, including Vijay Balkrishna Ranpise, allegedly instigated the to issue a notice under , deeming the buildings dilapidated. On June 25, 2016, around midnight, 400-500 persons, led by figures like Shrikant Gaware and Nagsen Sonare, arrived with bulldozers, razing the press and looting artifacts.
Petitioner Prakash Y. Ambedkar, Dr. Ambedkar's grandson appearing in-person, rushed his brother Anand to upon learning of the assault. Instead of aid, a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) threatened arrest, and no forces were dispatched. An FIR was lodged later that day, but investigation stalled, with some accused securing anticipatory bail.
Petitioners Cry Foul: Collusion, Negligence, and "Dastardly Act"
Prakash Ambedkar's writ petition (No. 1782/2017), alongside others from Dr. Surendra Dhaktode and applicants Nagsen Sonare et al., accused police (Respondents 8-10) of deliberate inaction and collusion with demolishers. They highlighted the failure to register a complaint pre-demolition, violating Supreme Court mandates in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335) on mandatory FIR recording. Stolen items, including irreplaceable Ambedkar-era documents, went unprobed.
News reports echoed the gravity, noting the demolition as an assault on Dalit heritage, with one respondent claiming responsibility on TV the next day.
Police's "Audacious" Riposte: Documents Lacking, Measures Taken?
The Assistant Commissioner of Police's April 28, 2026, affidavit drew the court's ire. It generically denied allegations, called them "vague," admitted police learned of the demolition but justified inaction by citing the BMC notice and lack of "documents" from complainants. It claimed officers reached the site post-facto for "preventive measures." Crucially, it omitted duty officers' names, mob size, and intelligence inputs—defying prior court directions.
Senior counsel Satish Maneshinde, for applicants, revealed prior police intimation of the "possession" plan on June 23, 2016, implying complicity.
Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: From Affidavit Shock to Directives
The bench dissected the affidavit as contrary to "basic principles of law," noting midnight demolitions (12 a.m.-7 a.m.) are "rare, if not unprecedented." Citing Bhajan Lal , it stressed constitutional duties on police for imminent crimes. The court found the response "not in consonance" with prior hearings, suppressing key details like the 400-person mob and intelligence lapses.
No other precedents were cited, but the ruling reinforced police obligations to act on credible threats, distinguishing routine BMC actions from mob-led ransackings.
Key Observations
"It is deeply disturbing to read such thoughtless Affidavit. We are constrained to express our shock at the audacity and the manner in which the Police responded to the complainants who approached the Police Station."
"Instead of promptly proceeding to the site and halting what appears to have been an illegal demolition, there was evident inaction on the part of the police."
"The names of the police officers who were on duty on 25th June 2016 at have not been mentioned in the said Affidavit despite oral directions by this Court."
"Whether the local police had received the necessary intelligence reports regarding gathering of such a mob and if yes what action or steps did the Police take to stop the same."
Directives with Teeth: Personal Accountability Imposed
The court ordered: - Commissioner to file a personal affidavit within six weeks, detailing duty officers, intelligence operations, and investigation materials—without delegation. - BMC Commissioner to affirm if demolition permission was granted for midnight hours or mob assistance, and if such practices are routine. - Amendments allowed to implead BMC Commissioner as Respondent No. 14; next hearing June 15, 2026.
This escalates scrutiny on institutional lapses, potentially setting precedents for police accountability in heritage crimes and trustee disputes. It signals zero tolerance for "thoughtless" defenses in cases touching cultural icons, urging systemic reforms in intelligence and response protocols.
