SC Demotes Andhra Pradesh Officer for Defying HC Orders in Slum Demolition Case; Imposes ₹1 Lakh Fine

Introduction

In a stern move underscoring the importance of judicial compliance, the Supreme Court of India has demoted an Andhra Pradesh Deputy Collector—previously serving as a Tahsildar—who was found guilty of contempt for demolishing slum dwellers' huts in violation of High Court orders. The Court has also imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh to be paid within four weeks.

A Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to demote the officer to his former position of Tahsildar, noting that the officer’s actions represented a “callous and adamant attitude” toward judicial authority.

Background of the Case

The controversy arose from two writ petitions filed before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 2013. The petitioners, claiming possession of certain plots in Guntur district, sought house site pattas and challenged eviction actions by the revenue authorities. In response, the High Court had directed the then-Tahsildar not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and to consider their applications within a stipulated timeframe.

Despite these directions, the Tahsildar allegedly ordered the forcible demolition of the slum dwellers’ huts on 6th December 2013 and again on 8th January 2014, deploying over 80 police personnel to the site. This led to contempt petitions being filed by the affected individuals. The High Court, finding a clear case of defiance, sentenced the officer to two months of simple imprisonment and a nominal fine of ₹2,000.

The officer challenged the conviction, arguing that the demolished structures were fresh encroachments and not linked to the petitioners. However, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed his appeal, finding the explanation vague and unconvincing.

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court

Upon approaching the Supreme Court, the officer (now serving as Deputy Collector) sought relief from the contempt punishment. The apex court, while acknowledging the gravity of the contempt, opted for a measured sentence in view of the wider consequences on the officer’s family.

“We find that while the petitioner does not deserve leniency, punishing him with imprisonment would result in automatic dismissal from service, affecting his children’s education and family’s livelihood,” observed the Court. “Though he expects mercy, his own conduct towards the poor was devoid of humanity.”

Instead of upholding the custodial sentence, the Court confirmed the contempt conviction but substituted imprisonment with a demotion in rank. The State has been directed to implement this demotion and consider any future promotions only from the demoted position. Additionally, a ₹1 lakh fine must be deposited by the officer within four weeks.

Sharp Words from the Bench

The Court did not mince words in expressing its disapproval. “When any Constitutional Court issues directions, they are not optional. Disobedience shakes the foundations of the rule of law,” the Bench stated.

Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka, representing the officer, argued that the demolition occurred amidst growing encroachments and regional tensions between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. He also pleaded that the officer's children would be left destitute if he lost his job. However, the Court was unimpressed, remarking that the officer should have considered these consequences before rendering slum dwellers homeless.

“He used 80 policemen to displace poor families. Now he wants a humanitarian approach for himself? This hypocrisy cannot be condoned,” said Justice Gavai.

At one point during the hearing, the Bench had offered the officer an option to accept demotion voluntarily to avoid jail time. However, the officer initially refused, hoping to escape without consequence—a stance that irked the Court and nearly resulted in the dismissal of his plea altogether.

After multiple adjournments sought by his counsel to persuade him, the officer finally relented. The Court then pronounced the final order on May 6, 2025.

Case Title: Tata Mohan Rao v. S. Venkateswarlu & Others

Case No.: SLP(C) Nos. 10056-10057/2025

Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih

Date of Decision: May 6, 2025