The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 5, 2026) pulled up civic authorities in State capitals for failing to act against illegal constructions and the unauthorised use of residential premises for non-residential purposes despite its earlier directions. The court also restrained municipal authorities from issuing directions contrary to its orders, warning that any interference could invite contempt proceedings.“...irrespective of any order that may be in operation, our directions shall be fully complied with by the authorities concerned... This will apply pan-India. We are indicating that if there is any attempt by any authority or government to interfere with any order of this court, the court may not show such restraint in issuing notice of contempt against the concerned authority, government or individual,” a Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan said.The Bench directed civic authorities across the country to identify illegal constructions within their respective jurisdictions and take action “without any delay”. It also directed them to ensure that public spaces and roads were cleared of stray cattle and to file compliance affidavits within three weeks.The directions were issued in a case arising from Tamil Nadu concerning a construction carried out in violation of land use norms and building bye-laws. In March this year, the court had expanded the scope of the proceedings and issued notices to civic bodies in several State capitals, including Delhi, Lucknow, Jaipur, Chennai, and Kolkata, seeking details of action taken against similar violations.The court’s intervention comes amid a series of fatal incidents involving buildings allegedly operating in violation of building bye-laws. In June, a fire at a coaching centre in Lucknow claimed 15 lives, while the collapse of a five-storey building in Saidulajab village near Delhi’s Saket Metro Station left six people dead and eight injured. The same month, a fire at a bed-and-breakfast facility in south Delhi also claimed several lives, including those of foreign nationals.On Wednesday (August 5, 2026), Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Bhopal Municipal Corporation, informed the court that the civic body had initially sealed around 100 premises for violations, but was subsequently required to unseal them.He drew the Bench’s attention to an August 2, 2026 order issued by the Madhya Pradesh government’s General Administration Department constituting a 10-member committee to recommend a policy framework for implementing the Supreme Court’s directions concerning commercial establishments operating from residential areas. Pending the committee’s recommendations, coercive action by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation against such establishments had been put on hold.The committee, headed by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Urban Development and Housing Department, comprised senior officials from departments, including Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Labour, Environment, Urban Administration and Development, Registration and Stamps, Town and Country Planning, and the Pollution Control Board. The Bhopal Collector and Municipal Commissioner were named as special invitees.“Kindly injunct the government from interfering in this kind of matter where we have to carry out our statutory functions... It is a handicap. They have constituted a committee although there is no direction to the government at all,” Mr. Nataraj submitted.‘Absolute collusion’Taking serious exception to the State government’s decision, Justice Amanullah questioned its authority to constitute such a committee when the Supreme Court’s directions were already in force and warned that such interference could invite contempt proceedings.“Unless you come and seek clarification from this court, you cannot constitute a committee. We will issue contempt. What business do you have to interfere like this? Absolute collusion,” Justice Amanullah remarked.The counsel appearing for the Madhya Pradesh government submitted that the committee had been constituted “out of abundant caution” and was intended to formulate a “clear policy” for implementing the directions.The Bench, however, refused to be swayed by the explanation and stayed the operation of the August 2, 2026 order. “We have absolutely no confusion in holding that the said constitution of the committee is contemptuous. Accordingly, there should be an immediate stay of the order,” it said.‘Abdication of responsibility’Turning to Bihar, the Bench noted that an affidavit filed by the Patna Municipal Corporation disclosed that 7,257 show cause notices had been issued in respect of premises being used for commercial or other non-residential purposes in violation of applicable norms.Expressing serious concern over the scale of the violations, Justice Amanullah observed that the figures pointed to an “abdication of responsibility” by the municipal authorities. The court accordingly issued notice to former Patna Municipal Commissioner Animesh Kumar Parashar, asking him to explain why action should not be taken against him for the alleged failure to discharge his responsibilities during his tenure.“The figure itself leaves nothing to doubt that there has been total abdication of responsibility on behalf of the concerned Municipal Commissioners. The Patna Municipal Corporation was not even aware what the violations were, and by whom, till the time the court took up the matter,” the Bench said.The court was particularly critical of Mr. Parashar, who served as Municipal Commissioner between November 2021 and October 2025, observing that the scale of the violations reflected “absolute slackness” during his nearly four-year tenure.“We find absolutely no justification for such figures for a person who held this post for almost four years. It clearly shows that he had absolutely no concern for what was happening on the ground and was blissfully unaware of the duty cast upon him both as a public servant and, more so, as the Commissioner of the Patna Municipal Corporation,” the Bench observed.“In the aforesaid background, we put him to notice as to why the court may not pass appropriate orders against him for such slackness shown during the period when he was occupying the office of the Commissioner,” it added.The Bench directed Mr. Parashar to file his response to the show cause notice and remain personally present before the court on the next date of hearing.The court also directed the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to proceed expeditiously against illegal constructions within its jurisdiction after being informed that 51 properties had been identified and action initiated against them.The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 15 to review compliance with its directions.