New Delhi: A Bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and K.V.Viswanathan of the Supreme Court, hearing a part-heard civil appeal concerning encroachments on riverbeds, passed a fresh set of directions on 21.07.2026 covering both the Ganga in Bihar and the Yamuna in Uttar Pradesh.
The matter, Civil Appeal No.3367/2020 filed by Ashok Kumar Sinha against the Union of India and others, was taken up along with two applications for appropriate orders and intervention, both of which were allowed. Notice was ordered to be issued on the pending interlocutory applications, returnable on 23.09.2026, with dasti service also permitted, while counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh waived formal service of notice.
Yamuna Encroachment Near Vrindavan
The Bench recorded that an interlocutory application had highlighted an issue it described as “something very serious. It is a matter of concern”, namely that ongoing construction was leading to the shrinking of the river channel of the Yamuna in Vrindavan District, Mathura, in Uttar Pradesh. Recording that its concern was to ensure that the ecological flow of water was maintained, the court directed that status quo be maintained and that no further construction be undertaken until the next date of hearing.
Ganga Encroachment in Bihar
On the continuing question of encroachments along the Ganga in Bihar, the court recalled that by its earlier order dated 12.03.2026, it had asked Ms.Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General, to file a comprehensive report answering five questions formulated by the court, and that by order dated 23.04.2026 she had sought more time, resulting in the matter being posted as part-heard for 21.07.2026.
The ASG informed the court that some States had furnished information that was not to the court's satisfaction, while some States had yet to respond at all. The court granted one last opportunity to all the States to furnish the necessary information to the Union, failing which it would be compelled to summon the Chief Secretary of each such State. Two more States, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, were added to the court's earlier list of nine States from which information had been sought.
Recalling its earlier order dated 12.03.2026, the court noted that of 213 identified encroachments, only 58 had been demolished, with the State authorities unable to remove the remaining 145 owing to interim orders passed by the High Court and other courts of the district judiciary, and that a second stretch, from Nauzar Ghat to Nurpur Ghat, had hundreds of further encroachments. Recording that no steps had been taken to remove encroachments even as on the date of the present order, the court granted the State of Bihar six weeks to ensure that every unauthorised structure and encroachment between Nauzar Ghat and Nurpur Ghat in Patna is removed.
The court directed that a compliance report by way of an affidavit be filed by a competent authority by the next date of hearing, cautioning that “any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly”. Having heard counsel for the State of Bihar, the court requested that its order be conveyed to the concerned authority the same day, and clarified that irrespective of any interim orders that courts may have passed restraining removal of encroachments, its own directions were to be fully complied with.
Next Steps
The matter now stands listed for further hearing, with the Union expected to place before the court a comprehensive report on the questions raised in its earlier order, updated compliance data from the States, and the status of construction activity along the Yamuna near Vrindavan.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr.Neeraj Kumar Sharma, AOR, with Mr.Akash Vashishtha and Mrs.Nidhi Agarwal, Advocates.
For the Union of India: Ms.Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, with counsel including Ms.Ruchi Kohli, Mr.Navanjay Mahapatra and Mr.Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR.
For the State of Uttar Pradesh: Mr.Rohit K.Singh, AOR.
For the State of Bihar: Ms.Rebecca Mishra, Advocate, for Mr.Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Sinha vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3367 of 2020
