The Gujarat High Court has called the Surat Corporation’s reversal on housing for demolition victims prima facie criminal contempt and has summoned the Municipal Commissioner and the Standing Committee Chairman to explain it in person.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court on Friday (October 23) said that the “change of stand” by the Commissioner of the Surat Municipal Corporation and the Chairperson of its Standing Committee, in not providing alternative accommodation to residents whose homes were demolished despite an earlier assurance, is prima facie criminal contempt, and directed both officers to remain present on the next date to explain why contempt proceedings should not be taken against them [Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others].
Justice Nikhil S. Kariel passed the order while hearing a petition by a group of residents against the demolition drive carried out in the Nasir Nagar area in June. The two officers were personally present in court. The matter has been listed on November 27.
How the case reached here
The petitioners say their homes were demolished illegally in June. The Corporation had earlier given an assurance, through the Advocate General, that accommodation would be provided to them. It later disputed the residents’ claim that the alternative accommodation offered was in dilapidated condition, and at a hearing on October 9 the Court orally remarked that it would not permit the Corporation to back out. It then asked the Municipal Commissioner and the head of the elected wing of the Corporation to attend the next hearing to explain the change in stand.
What the officers told the Court
The Court recorded that the Commissioner and the Chairman of the Standing Committee informed it that the change of stand was because the Corporation believes it has no policy under which persons in the petitioners’ position can be given any assistance. Senior counsel for the Corporation then sought time to take instructions and, when the Court said the two officers must be present on the next date, relied on Supreme Court judgments to submit that their personal presence was not necessary.
What the Court said
The Court held that the officers’ stand, taken during the course of the hearing, was prima facie contemptuous:
“Such a change of stand is nothing less than interfering but tending to interfere with or obstructing with administration of justice or tending to scandalize or lowering authority of this court, more so since such change of stand had taken place during the course of hearing.”
On the Supreme Court decisions cited, the Court said they concern unnecessary orders summoning officers whose stand is effectively put forward by counsel. It called the present case an exceptional and extraordinary situation, noting that it had prima facie found that 28 houses were demolished by Corporation officers without authority of law or any procedure, and that the petition alleges the officers acted at the behest of private individuals. It added that counsel would not be able to effectively address the court on the change of stand, and rejected the senior counsel’s submission.
The Court said the presence of the officers is a precursor to deciding why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken, and that the real reasons for the change of stand were not coming forth through counsel. It described it as unfathomable that officers who are part of the State hierarchy had taken a stand against the State’s senior-most law officer, and said the Corporation was now trying to wriggle out of an assurance given to the court.
After the order was dictated, senior counsel said the Corporation would seek a stay of the order and asked that the contempt proceedings not be taken up immediately. The Court replied that it could list the matter on whichever day counsel wished, and said counsel could test the order.
The legal position
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt covers any act that scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower, the authority of any court, or that interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs, the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. The Court’s observation is a prima facie view recorded to require the officers’ presence. No contempt notice has yet been finally adjudicated and the officers have not been found guilty of anything.
Why the order matters
The order shows a High Court treating a civic body’s retreat from a commitment given during litigation as a possible interference with the administration of justice, rather than only as a policy dispute. It also records how the Court read the Supreme Court’s caution against summoning officers routinely: that caution, it said, does not apply where counsel cannot explain why a stand changed mid-hearing.
The Corporation has said it will seek a stay, and its position that the residents are not covered by any policy is yet to be tested. The legality of the demolition itself remains to be decided.
Case Title: Ansari M. Ikbal Alihusen and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [R/SCA/8712/2026]
Bench: Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, Gujarat High Court
Date of Order: October 23, 2026; next hearing November 27, 2026
Appearances: Senior counsel for the Surat Municipal Corporation (name not stated)