Salaries stopped, Rs 5 lakh costs imposed and a show cause notice issued: the Supreme Court has held that the Mumbai Municipal Commissioner committed contempt of two earlier orders on clearing encroachments from land earmarked for a BEST bus stand.
New Delhi: Refusing more time and imposing costs of Rs 5 lakh, the Supreme Court on November 3, 2026 held that the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai has committed contempt of two of its earlier orders directing removal of encroachments from land earmarked for a BEST bus stand in Mumbai, and issued a show cause notice asking why contempt action should not be taken against him [Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, BEST bus stand encroachment matter].
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana dismissed the Commissioner’s application seeking more time to comply, and directed that no salary be disbursed to the Commissioner or his staff until the show cause notice is decided.
What the order directs
- The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai has committed contempt of two earlier orders on removal of encroachments from the BEST bus stand land.
- A show cause notice is issued to the Commissioner on why contempt action should not be taken against him.
- The application for extension of time is dismissed with costs of Rs 5 lakh.
- No salary is to be disbursed to the Commissioner or his staff until the show cause notice is decided.
Before the Court decides on contempt action, the Commissioner will have an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.
The translation explanation
The civic body had asked for an extension of time to carry out the Court’s directions on clearing the land. One of the reasons in its affidavit was that municipal officers needed documents in Marathi to be translated into English before they could act. The bench took serious exception to that explanation.
Justice Bagchi pointed to the reasons furnished for the extension, noting the claim that the officers do not know Marathi and need translation into English, and asked whether the Court was expected to believe it.
The CJI’s oral remarks
The CJI made sharp oral remarks during the hearing about the conduct of the civic officials. These remarks are not part of a written order.
“Does it not show that your officers are colluding? We will send him to jail and then he will understand the sanctity of the Supreme Court order.”
Describing the conduct as an “absolutely mischievous breach of the directions of the Supreme Court, with the direct connivance and support of the encroachers”, the CJI said the bench could record all of this in the order itself. He also remarked that the officers were reluctant to appear before the Supreme Court but eager to approach the civil court and the High Court, and said the bench would dismiss the application without granting further time.
Counsel for the civic body sought to make a statement, but the CJI said the Court was not recording any statement and was issuing directions. Justice V Mohana told counsel to comply with the last order and file a compliance report.
Why the order matters
The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that public authorities cannot treat its directions as optional, and that compliance with court orders is the backbone of the rule of law. Contempt jurisdiction exists so that orders are carried out, not merely acknowledged, and an officer at the head of a civic body is personally answerable when they are not.
Halting salaries and imposing costs on an extension plea are unusual steps that signal the bench’s view of the delay. The order also sends a message on encroachment cases: where land is earmarked for public transport, the Court expects civic bodies to clear it within the time fixed, without procedural excuses such as translation of documents.
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, BEST bus stand encroachment matter (case title awaited)
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 3, 2026