New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in its continuing proceedings on unauthorised and illegal use of buildings, including coaching centres, across the country, has taken serious note of a threat made to a person assisting the Court in Rajasthan, issued a contempt notice against the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand for total non-compliance with its earlier orders, and issued uniform directions for sealing of premises found in unauthorised commercial use in residential areas.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan were hearing Miscellaneous Application (Civil) Diary No. 17103/2026, arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8044/2025, Loganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, in the course of continuing proceedings concerning unauthorised construction and misuse of buildings across several States, a matter that has engaged dozens of States and Union Territories as parties or intervenors.
At the outset, a Senior Counsel appearing as an Officer of the Court informed the Bench that after he had flagged, in his capacity assisting the Court, that certain coaching centres were illegally operating from commercial areas in Jaipur and needed to relocate to designated zones, an associate travelling with him received a threatening call warning of dire consequences. Though an FIR was registered on 12.09.2026, the Court was informed that nothing substantial had been done since. Taking serious note, the Court initially directed the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to appear in person, though this was later dispensed with after an assurance that strict action would be taken within 24 hours.
The Court observed: “An Officer of the Court or, for that matter, any person who assists the Court, must be able to discharge his duties without fear or apprehension. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that no harm comes to such person, and the Court would leave no stone unturned to protect such persons.”
On the status of local inspections, the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, reported that inspections in Delhi and Lucknow had been completed, but flagged the lack of cooperation from the New Delhi Municipal Council during the Delhi inspection. The learned ASG assured full cooperation from the NDMC going forward. Separately, the Court noted that the State of Uttarakhand had neither entered appearance, nor deposited the mandated sum, nor filed an affidavit in the proceedings, and accordingly issued a contempt notice against the Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand, directing his presence on the next date.
The Court also recorded that Tamil Nadu had disposed of nearly 260 pending cases relating to the exercise and extended time to complete the remainder till 07.11.2026, and that Madhya Pradesh had withdrawn its earlier resolution to constitute a Committee on the Bhopal Master Plan, which the Court had previously stayed, permitting instead the publication of a draft Master Plan for Bhopal, unrevised since 1995, for inviting public objections, on the assurance that it would not be finalised without the Court's leave.
Issuing uniform directions applicable across the proceedings, the Court held that priority must be given to ensuring no commercial activity takes place in areas earmarked exclusively for residential use, with such premises to be sealed if found in violation; that in areas without a clearly specified use, status quo would be maintained for the present; and that the pendency of any private or governmental dispute over title would not bar the Authorities from sealing premises found to be in unauthorised use. It further clarified that wholly unauthorised structures, raised without any approval whatsoever, would remain liable to sealing or demolition in accordance with law, and cautioned that any discriminatory or selective, "pick-and-choose", enforcement by the Authorities would invite a strict view from the Court.
Noting the extensive work undertaken by the Amicus Curiae's team, the Court directed the Registry to issue a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- in his name, from the funds deposited by the States in the proceedings, towards secretarial expenses and as an honorarium for the team. The matter was listed next for 23.11.2026, with States and Authorities directed to file updated status reports a week in advance.
Case Title: Loganathan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, M.A. (C) D. No. 17103/2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8044/2025)
