The Supreme Court has expressed “grave and unequivocal displeasure” over the conduct of senior officials of Jaipur’s municipal administration for failing to comply with its order directing the de-sealing of a property.
While ultimately accepting their unconditional apologies and closing the contempt proceedings, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath cautioned that any future negligence in obeying court orders would be dealt with severely.
Table of Contents
Background: Property Sealed Amid Walled City Demolition Litigation
The case arose from ongoing litigation concerning alleged unauthorized constructions within Jaipur’s historic Walled City area. The Rajasthan High Court, while dealing with a public interest litigation, had directed demolition and permanent sealing of several properties. Several affected property owners challenged those directions before the Supreme Court, contending that the orders had been passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
One such affected property owner approached the Supreme Court seeking de-sealing of his premises after the Court had already stayed the operation of certain directions issued by the High Court. On January 30, 2026, the Supreme Court specifically directed the concerned authorities to open and de-seal the property and restore possession to the owner.
Despite Supreme Court Order, Authorities Failed to Act
According to the petitioner, he immediately submitted a written representation to the municipal authorities enclosing the Supreme Court’s order and later followed it up through email communications. When no action was taken, a legal notice was also issued demanding compliance with the Court’s directions.
Despite repeated communications, the property continued to remain sealed. This compelled the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against senior officials, including the Deputy Commissioner, the Director-cum-Special Secretary of the Local Self Government Department, and the Municipal Commissioner.
Supreme Court Summons Officials
As the authorities failed to explain the delay satisfactorily, the Supreme Court directed the Deputy Commissioner concerned to appear personally before it and explain why its orders had not been complied with.
Subsequently, the State informed the Court that the property had finally been de-sealed and possession restored on April 25, 2026—nearly three months after the Court’s order. The Court nevertheless required the officer to file affidavits explaining the delay, detailing compliance, and, if desired, tendering an apology.
After examining the materials placed on record, the Court even recorded a prima facie view that the matter was fit for framing contempt charges against the officials.
Court Criticises Demand for ₹10.52 Lakh During Compliance
A particularly troubling aspect noted by the Court was that, at the same time as the property was being de-sealed, the Director of Local Bodies issued a communication demanding ₹10,52,832 from the petitioner as a purported premium or security deposit.
The Supreme Court described this demand as wholly improper and observed that it appeared coercive and retaliatory in nature, especially when it was made simultaneously with compliance of the Court’s order directing restoration of possession.
The demand was later withdrawn by the authorities through a communication dated May 19, 2026.
“Orders of Supreme Court Cannot Be Addressed at Leisure”
Writing for the Bench, Justice Vikram Nath delivered strong observations regarding the conduct of the officials.
The Court noted that public authorities entrusted with implementing the law had treated clear directions of the Supreme Court as though they could be complied with at their convenience rather than with the urgency required by law.
The judgment emphasized that contempt of court strikes at the foundation of the rule of law and that disregard of judicial orders by public functionaries undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.
The Court observed that despite repeated representations and legal notices from the petitioner, no meaningful action was taken until contempt proceedings were initiated and the Court began demanding personal accountability from the concerned officials.
Apology Accepted, But Stern Warning Issued
During the proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner, the Director-cum-Special Secretary, and the Municipal Commissioner each filed unconditional affidavits of apology. They acknowledged their failure, expressed regret for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner, and assured the Court that greater care would be taken in future compliance with judicial orders.
The Supreme Court accepted the apologies and noted that the property had ultimately been de-sealed and possession restored. However, it clarified that acceptance of the apology should not be construed as condoning the conduct of the officials.
The Bench warned that any future default in complying with orders of the Supreme Court or any other court would be viewed with “utmost severity” and may not receive similar indulgence.
Case Details
Case Title: BHARAT KUMAR BADLANI v/s SEEMA CHAUDHARY
Citation: Jurishour-1479-Sc-2026
Case No.: CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) OF 2026 (DIARY NO.21438/2026) IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.30588 OF 2025
Date: 29/05/2026
Read More: Supreme Court Orders Time-Bound Eviction of Forest Encroachments in Tamil Nadu Tiger Reserves
