Supreme Court Scrutinises Assam Demolitions, Issues Contempt Notice to Chief Secretary

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has placed the Government of Assam under judicial scrutiny, issuing a notice of contempt to its Chief Secretary, Ravi Kota, and other senior officials over a mass demolition and eviction drive conducted in the Hasila Beel village of Goalpara district. The apex court's action, taken on July 24, 2025, stems from a petition alleging that the state's actions constitute a wilful and deliberate violation of pan-India guidelines on demolitions established by the Court itself in a landmark 2023 judgment.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, alongside Justice K. Vinod Chandran, is examining the petition filed by residents of Hasila Beel. The petitioners claim that the state machinery, in an "arbitrary and high-handed manner," razed hundreds of homes, shops, and even five primary schools, displacing approximately 667 families who have lived in the area for decades. The Court has directed the officials to respond within two weeks, though it has dispensed with their personal appearance for the time being.

The case, titled Nur Nabi & Ors. v. Ravi Kota & Ors. , brings to the forefront critical questions about the enforcement of judicial mandates, the principles of due process, and the state's obligations towards its most vulnerable citizens.

Background: The Alleged Violation of Judicial Mandates

The core of the contempt petition rests on the alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court's comprehensive directions issued in November 2023 in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures . In that judgment, a bench, which also included now-CJI Gavai, had invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to lay down a uniform procedure for demolitions across the country. The Court had emphatically stated that any deviation from these guidelines would invite proceedings for criminal contempt.

The key directives from the 2023 judgment included: - The mandatory issuance of a prior show-cause notice to the affected parties. - A compulsory waiting period of 15 days after a demolition order is passed, to allow for appeals or judicial review. - The establishment of a designated digital portal by every local authority to display demolition orders.

The petitioners from Hasila Beel village allege a flagrant disregard for this established legal framework. According to their plea, filed through Advocate-on-Record Adeel Ahmed, the entire eviction process was initiated by an "undated impugned notice" issued by the Circle Officer of Balijana Revenue Circle on June 13, 2025. This notice demanded that all occupants vacate and remove houses, structures, and crops within a mere two-day window.

The plea highlights a critical failure in procedural fairness: "No sufficient time or any opportunity of hearing was provided to the Petitioners... In fact the notice was not even issued individually to the Petitioners..." Instead, the eviction was reportedly announced over a microphone, leaving little room for residents to comprehend the order, seek legal counsel, or challenge the directive.

The Human and Constitutional Cost

The petitioners, who identify as landless, contend that their families settled in the Hasila Beel revenue village 50 to 60 years ago after being displaced by the erosion of the Brahmaputra river. They assert their status as legitimate residents, holding voter IDs, PAN cards, and Aadhaar cards. The state's justification for the eviction is that the land in question was "purportedly allotted to Assam Fisheries Development Corporation in the year 2015."

Despite the long-standing settlement, the state and the Goalpara district administration allegedly proceeded with a mass demolition drive affecting 667 families. The petitioners argue this action was taken even after some aggrieved parties had approached the Gauhati High Court, which issued notice but declined to grant any interim stay on the eviction.

The petition underscores the devastating impact of the drive, noting, "The houses, crops, properties, belongings, etc. of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have all been demolished in the eviction and demolition exercise."

Furthermore, the demolition of five government primary schools has been cited as a direct violation of the fundamental right to education guaranteed under Article 21A of the Constitution and the statutory protections of the Right to Education Act, 2009. The plea also contains a serious allegation of discrimination, suggesting that the eviction drive "predominantly targeted a minority community, while leaving out similarly placed persons from the majority community untouched."

Reliefs Sought and Officials Implicated

The contempt petition seeks stringent action from the Supreme Court. The primary prayers include: 1. Initiation of contempt proceedings against the named officials for wilful violation of the Court's 2023 judgment. 2. A declaration that the eviction drive in Hasila Beel was unconstitutional. 3. A directive for the Chief Secretary of Assam to file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to circulate and ensure compliance with the Supreme Court's demolition guidelines. 4. A demand for interim relief, including compensation for the displaced families and the reconstruction of demolished homes and schools.

Besides Chief Secretary Ravi Kota, the petition names several other key officials, including Gyanendra Dev Tripathi (Principal Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management), Khanindra Choudhury (Goalpara's District Commissioner), and Nabaneet Mahanta (Goalpara's Superintendent of Police), as respondents.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

This case serves as a crucial test of the judiciary's ability to enforce its own orders against the executive. The 2023 guidelines were intended to prevent the arbitrary use of state power, often wielded through bulldozers, and to ensure that the rule of law prevails over administrative expediency. The allegations from Goalpara, if proven, would represent precisely the kind of executive overreach the Supreme Court sought to curb.

For legal practitioners, the case highlights the growing importance of public interest litigation and contempt jurisdiction as tools to hold the state accountable. The outcome will be closely watched, as it could set a powerful precedent for how state governments across India must conduct demolition activities, reinforcing the principles of natural justice and due process.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice signals its intent to seriously examine the state's actions. The Assam government's response will be pivotal in determining whether the demolitions were a legitimate administrative action or a case of contemptuous disregard for the law of the land as laid down by its highest court. The fate of the 667 families of Hasila Beel now rests on this crucial judicial examination.