The Supreme Court has issued a contempt notice to the Assam Chief Secretary and other officials over an alleged illegal eviction and demolition drive in Goalpara’s Hasila Beel, violating apex court guidelines. The petitioners claimed the action was arbitrary, without due notice or hearings, impacting landless residents.
In a development, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday issued a notice on a plea seeking contempt proceedings against Assam Chief Secretary Ravi Kota and other senior officials for allegedly conducting a mass eviction and demolition drive in Hasila Beel, Goalpara, in violation of apex court guidelines.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran sought responses from the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary of Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Gyanendra Dev Tripathi, Goalpara District Commissioner Khanindra Choudhury, Superintendent of Police Nabaneet Mahanta, and other concerned officials.
“Issue notice, returnable in two weeks. Personal presence of the alleged contemnor(s) is dispensed with, until further orders,” the Supreme Court ordered.
The contempt petition, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, alleged that the eviction drive was carried out in a high-handed and arbitrary manner. According to the plea, the petitioners—residents of Hasila Beel—were not given adequate notice, nor were they provided any opportunity to be heard before the demolition of their houses, shops, and cultivation.
The plea claims that the authorities served a notice requiring the residents to vacate the land and remove their structures within just two days—an action described as unjust and oppressive.
“The houses, crops, properties, belongings, etc. of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have all been demolished in the eviction and demolition exercise,” the petition stated.
The petitioners further explained that they belong to landless families whose forefathers had settled in the Hasila Beel revenue village under the Balijana Revenue Circle over 50 years ago. Many had migrated to the area after losing homes and land due to the erosion caused by the Brahmaputra River.
The petition argued that the state authorities acted in blatant disregard of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter titled “In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures.” The court, in its judgment delivered in November last year, had issued a series of pan-India directives under Article 142 of the Constitution to regulate demolition activities.
According to those directives, no demolition is to be carried out without prior issuance of a show-cause notice. Furthermore, once such an order is passed, it must not be implemented for at least 15 days, giving the affected party time to seek legal recourse. The court had also mandated that such demolition orders must be published on a digital portal maintained by municipal and local authorities.
The Supreme Court had warned that failure to comply with its directives would invite charges of criminal contempt and possible prosecution of the responsible authorities.
However, in the Goalpara case, the petitioners allege that none of these safeguards were observed. They say no digital record of the demolition order was provided, and the state failed to offer any means for judicial review before undertaking the large-scale evictions.
Human rights advocates have expressed concern over the incident, arguing that it reflects a broader pattern of disregard for due process in eviction-related actions across the country. Several civil society organisations have also raised questions about the fate of displaced families, many of whom have nowhere to go and have lost both shelter and livelihood.
The Supreme Court’s notice marks a serious turn in the case, as contempt proceedings against top state officials could lead to personal accountability. The bench has given two weeks for the respondents to file their replies.
| Also Read: Northeast states form task forces to stop illegal infiltration |
Legal observers say that the case may set a precedent on the enforcement of the apex court’s demolition guidelines. If contempt is upheld, it may result in stricter adherence to procedural protections in future eviction actions nationwide.
The next hearing is expected in two weeks, with all eyes on the state government’s response.
