Supreme Court Seeks MP Authorities' Response On Plea Alleging Illegal Demolition Of Accused's Home

The Supreme Court today sought a response from the Madhya Pradesh authorities in a plea seeking contempt proceedings for the alleged illegal demolition of the petitioner's house in violation of the Supreme Court's directions.

The petitioner named Imroz Khan, a resident of Sehore District, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's refusal to initiate contempt proceedings. According to the petitioner, his house was demolished following the registration of a false case against him alleging unlwaful religious conversion.

Sr Advocate Dr S Murlidhar, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran that the case was a stark example of 'state lawlessness'. He said : 

"Despite my lord's judgment, the same thing- utter state lawlessness. It's actually an example of state lawlessness," he said.

The petitioner stated that he was the occupant of a residential property since 2018. As per his plea, "In August 2025, following a false and communal FIR registered under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 against his family, the local municipal authorities began issuing arbitrary demolition notices." 

Apprehending such demolition, the petitioner filed a writ plea before the High Court. On September 12, the High Court directed the authorities to ensure that there is compliance with the decision in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, before taking any demolition steps. 

Despite this order, on September 15, the local authorities demolished the petitioner's house.

The petitioner then filed a contempt petition before the High Court, alleging a violation of the September 12 order. The petitioner also stated that the demolition was carried out after showing the High Court order's copy to the authorities. 

While dismissing the contempt petition on October 8, the High Court observed that the petitioner had not produced any record to show that he had the permission to raise the construction. The High Court further observed  that “no documentary proof existed to show the order was brought to the respondents' notice before the demolition."Allowing the petitioner to pursue a civil suit for compensation, the contempt matter was dismissed.

The plea states that the High Court has "abdicated its constitutional duty to ensure obedience to its orders and thereby weakened the enforcement of judicial authority which forms the cornerstone of the rule of law." 

The petition contends that the High Court's reasoning is “perverse”, arguing that contempt does not require formal proof of service once knowledge of the order is demonstrated. It further asserts that the High Court abdicated its constitutional duty to enforce compliance with its own orders and with binding Supreme Court precedent under Article 141.

"The arbitrary and communal demolition of the petitioner's home also raises grave issues of fundamental rights. The act violates Articles 14, 19(1)(e), 21, 25, and 300-A of the Constitution," the petitioner argued.

The petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 08.10.2025, a declaration of contempt against the erring officials, and consequential directions for restoration, compensation, and accountability.

The matter will now be heard after 3 weeks. 

The plea was filed through AOR Daisy Hannah

Case Details: IMROZ KHAN vs. SUDHIR KUMAR|SLP(C) No. 033404 - / 2025