Calling the officer’s conduct “inhuman,” the Supreme Court emphasized that even high-ranking officials must obey the law and court orders.
BY PC Bureau
New Delhi: In a strong rebuke to arbitrary demolitions carried out by public officials, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered the demotion of Tata Mohan Rao, a deputy collector in Andhra Pradesh, for overseeing the demolition of slum dwellings in Guntur district despite a High Court stay. The top court also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on Rao and directed that the amount be deposited in a housing charity scheme.
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih confirmed the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling that Rao was guilty of contempt of court. At the time of the demolition, Rao was serving as a Tahsildar. He was later promoted to deputy collector in 2023, while contempt proceedings were still underway.
The apex court expressed serious concern over Rao’s conduct and made it clear that no one is above the law, regardless of rank or political proximity.
“It is clear that he is close to the government. We want this message to go across the country that however high a post you hold, you cannot disobey court orders,” Justice Gavai said during the hearing.
ALSO READ: Alert Border Forces Kill Seven Jaish Terrorists Near Samba
Although the Bench noted that Rao’s actions warranted a custodial sentence, it stopped short of sending him to jail, citing the potential impact on his family. The court, however, made it clear that leniency was being extended not on account of the officer’s behavior, which it termed “inhuman”, but solely to avoid collateral damage to his dependents.
“The petitioner ought to have thought of all this when he demolished the homes of hut dwellers and threw them on the road. If he now expects a human approach, he should not have acted in an inhuman manner,” the court said in its order. “Disobedience of court orders attacks the very basis of the rule of law on which our democracy is based.”
The case stems from a 2018 order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court staying the demolition of huts in Guntur. Despite this, Rao allegedly supervised the razing of these homes, displacing numerous families from the economically weaker sections. The act prompted contempt proceedings, which eventually reached the Supreme Court.
In oral observations made earlier this week, the judges had sharply questioned Rao’s remorse, saying: “You did not think of God when you demolished people’s homes? Now you remember your children? You may go to jail, and you may lose your job.”
In delivering its final verdict on Friday, the court sought to send a broader message—not just to Rao, but to government authorities across the country—about respecting court orders and the limits of state power.
ALSO READ: India Declares War on Social Media, Forces X to Block 8,000 Users
Crucially, the court previously laid down to regulate demolitions. These include the mandatory issuance of a 15-day notice prior to any demolition, along with a detailed show-cause explaining the reasons and legal basis for the action. Authorities are also required to ensure that affected parties are given an opportunity to be heard.
The demolition process must be videographed, and all related documents should be made publicly accessible on official portals to ensure transparency. Any demolition beyond the portion of the structure found to be illegal must be compensated. The court had also made it clear that officers violating these principles could face individual liability—including contempt proceedings and restitution.
These guidelines, grounded in the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, are meant to safeguard against the rising trend of so-called “bulldozer justice” that bypasses legal norms.
“This cannot go unpublished,” the court said, asserting that arbitrary state action must not become the norm. “We cannot permit our High Courts to be treated in a contemptuous manner.”
With this verdict, the Supreme Court has not only held a senior bureaucrat accountable for overreach but has once again underscored that the power of the state must operate within the bounds of law and humanity.
