Illegal, unsafe buildings: Supreme Court seeks action reports, summons senior MCD officials to Court

New Delhi: In a matter concerning illegal and unsafe buildings and structures across the country, the Supreme Court has passed strong directions by directing senior officials of municipal corporations and development authorities in Delhi, Gurugram, Lucknow, Patna and Tamil Nadu to submit status reports on the action taken against buildings that pose serious safety risks.

Taking note of the recent tragic building collapse in Saket, Delhi, and fire incidents in Malviya Nagar, Delhi, and Aliganj, Lucknow, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan directed the authorities to place before it the action taken in compliance with the Court's May 20 directions. The officials concerned have also been directed to remain physically present before the Court on the next date of hearing on August 4.

Also read: Delhi Development Authority issues fresh notice to remove all encroachments from its land


The Court also directed the constitution of a special team comprising two senior professors from IIT Delhi and two draftsmen to conduct a time-bound ground survey of Saket, Malviya Nagar and Lajpat Nagar. The team will be accompanied by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). A similar exercise will be carried out in Sarojini Nagar, which falls under the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC).

The Court said there should be no "slackness" in the exercise and that the committee must submit an honest report.

"We make it clear that there should be no slackness with regard to the committee giving an honest report. If any doubt is raised, we may send a special team from this Court to ensure the honesty of the report," the Court said.

The Court also agreed with the amicus curiae (court-appointed lawyer) that the authorities were adopting a "face-saving approach" by arresting only builders after building collapses and fire incidents while taking no action against their own officials who had failed to act against illegal structures.

"The authorities are only taking a face-saving approach, as only the builders are being arrested and no officer of the authorities or corporations is being acted against," the Court said.

It directed the authorities to disclose in their reports the names of senior officials responsible for such failures.

The Court also took note of a recent news report published in the Delhi edition of the Hindustan Times newspaper, which reported that 93 per cent of establishments in Gurugram were failing to comply with fire-safety requirements. In this regard, the Court directed the chief executive head of the Gurugram development authority to remain personally present and file a report detailing the actual steps taken in compliance with the May 20 directions.

The Court warned that it may initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against Commissioners, CEOs and other responsible officials of municipal corporations and development authorities if they fail to place action taken reports on record or comply with its directions by the next date.

"We may straightaway take suo motu contempt proceedings against the responsible officials -- Commissioners/CEOs of such municipalities or the Development Authorities concerned," the Court said.

The Court further warned that if it finds on the next date that no action has been taken despite earlier directions and demolition orders, responsibility would be fixed directly on the chief executive heads of the authorities concerned.

"We indicate that if, on the next date, we find that no action has been taken, straightaway responsibility would be fixed upon the CEO of the said authority," the Court said.

Also read: 143 illegal structures to be removed in Delhi's Shalimar Bagh as SC upholds road widening project

In its May 20 order, the Court had directed the authorities to take "immediate and effective measures", including sealing and demolition, against illegal and unauthorised constructions identified during surveys. It had also directed them to disclose the actual action taken through affidavits personally affirmed by the heads of the authorities concerned.

"The affidavits shall reflect effective action taken on the ground and not a mere ritualistic compliance. We clarify that by 'follow up action', we mean immediate and effective measures, including sealing, demolition, or any other action warranted in law," the Court had said.