Nagpur violence: civic chief apologises to HC over illegal demolitions, claims ignorance of SC guidelines

The two -story residence of Fahim Khan, a key accused in the violence of March 17, being demolished in Nagpur. | Photo credit: PTI

The municipal commissioner of Nagpur, Abhijeet Chaudhari, has presented an unconditional apology to the Superior Court of Bombay for the demolition of properties belonging to those accused in a case of recent disturbances, admitting that civic officials were not aware of the Supreme Court.

In an affidavit filed before the Bank of Nagpur of the Superior Court on Tuesday (April 15, 2025), Mr. Chaudhari declared that the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) had not received any circular from the Maharashtra government with respect to the guidelines of the Apex Court, which require procedural procedural insurance before the demolished properties.

A division bank of Judges Nitin Sambre and Vrusshali Joshi gave the state government two weeks to respond, while indicating the overreach of the administration. The court had previously remained demolitions on March 24 after the petitioners, including Fahim Khan, a key accused of sedition, challenged the actions of the civic body.

While Mr. Khan’s two -story house was destroyed before the order of the court, the authorities arrested the demolition of Yusuf Sheikh’s coaccada property after judicial intervention.

Mr. Chaudhari said that the city’s planning department was not aware of the 2022 ruling of the Supreme Court, which ordered the states that issued circulars that guarantee due process before such demolitions. “No circular reached the NMC, so Zonal officers followed the existing statutes such as Slum’s law, 1971,” he said, emphasizing that the lapses were not intentional.

The demolitions followed the violence of March 17 in Nagpur caused by the rumors of a desecrated religious chadar during the protests against the tomb of Aurengzeb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinar.

The Affidavit underlines systemic failures in the dissemination of judicial directives. Critics allege that demolitions attacked minorities, while the NMC ordered that it acted without malice. The scrutiny of the Superior Court now proves the balance between urban governance and constitutional safeguards.

(With PTI inputs)