Nagpur: Three former senior officials of Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) stood by their claim of having “want of knowledge” of Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 judgment on use of bulldozers for demolition of properties. They said they learnt about the ruling only through general media reports and did not know about its detailed directions.The affidavits were filed through counsel Jemini Kasat on Friday after the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed officials to individually clarify whether they continued to maintain the statement made in their April 13, 2025 replies. The court had questioned the explanation that they were unaware of the apex court’s directions, which had been widely reported after the November 13, 2024, judgment.The officials have now sought to draw a distinction between knowing about the judgment and knowing its operative directions. They said media reports had conveyed that demolitions could not be undertaken without following due process, but did not reproduce the detailed directions issued by the apex court.The then municipal commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari stated he became aware of the “Bulldozer Judgment” through general reporting in print and electronic media but could not recall the specific source.The former commissioner also argued that media reports could not be treated as an authoritative source of law. Such reports, he said, did not contain the complete judgment and could sometimes be “inaccurate and garbled”. Consequently, he said, information obtained from such reports was not relied upon for official policy decisions in the absence of an authoritative copy of the judgment, a law report or a govt directive or circular.Kamlesh Chauhan, then competent authority (slum) of NMC, said he learnt about the judgment through news reports but could not recall the source. He said the reports focused on demolition without due process, while detailed directions contained in the SC verdict were not part of the coverage. Harish Raut, then NMC assistant commissioner of Ashinagar Zone, put up a similar stand.All three officials maintained their April 13, 2025 statements were made against this backdrop. They said their “want of knowledge” was not an assertion that they had never heard of the SC judgement, but that they lacked knowledge of its detailed directions applicable to demolition proceedings.The affidavits are filed in the two petitions by Mahal riots prime accused Fahim Khan’s 69-year-old mother, Mehrunissa Shamim Khan, and 96-year-old Abdul Hafiz, whose property was partially demolished as his relative was made an accused in the riots.HC has been examining not only compliance with the top court’s demolition safeguards but also the speed and consistency with which NMC acted in the case. In the last hearing, a division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Rajnish Vyas had sought details of demolition action over a 10-year period to examine whether the civic body had acted selectively.Supreme Court’s November 13, 2024, ruling laid down procedural safeguards governing demolition of properties, including requirements concerning notice and an opportunity to challenge the proposed action. The Nagpur proceedings arose after NMC undertook demolition action in March 2025, prompting HC to examine whether the civic body had complied with those safeguards..
