Officer Facing Contempt Action Refuses To Accept Demotion As Punishment; Supreme Court Warns Of Jail

The Supreme Court today expressed its displeasure at a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, when he said that he would not accept demotion as a punishment for contempt of court.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih was dealing with a plea filed by the petitioner/Deputy Collector against a High Court order which found him guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to 2 months' simple imprisonment. 

Yesterday, Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka (for the petitioner) was asked to obtain instructions if the Deputy Collector was willing to give an undertaking that he would continue working at the post of Deputy Tahsildar (that is, the post at which he was initially appointed). Today, the senior counsel conveyed the petitioner's unwillingness to accept what was falling from the Court.

Displeased, the bench noted that it was being lenient to the petitioner, keeping in view his children and his future. But his adamancy spoke volumes about what attitude he must have had towards the High Court's orders. "We wanted to save his career. But if he does not want, we can't help. This shows what attitude he must have had about orders of HC", commented Justice Gavai.

When the petitioner, who was present in person, prayed for mercy, the judge remarked,

"Jab 80 police wale leke logo ke ghar giraye tab Bhagwan ki yaad nahi aayi apko?" (When you took 80 policemen to demolish people's houses, then you did not remember God?)

Notably, the Court even proposed that the petitioner be demoted to the post of Tahsildar (instead of Deputy Tahsildar). However, the petitioner was not agreeable and drew the Court's ire for expecting to go scot-free.

"Thinking of your children, we were trying to save you from going to jail. But if you want to go, go. Stay there for 2 months. Your job will also go. This can't go unpunished. After warning of HC, if someone indulges in this thing...Howsoever high one may be, [he] is not above the law. We can't permit orders of our HCs to be treated in such a contemptuous manner. We won't let go of this without punishment."

Even today, the Court gave 10 minutes time to Bharuka to try and convince the petitioner. "If he is adamant, we can't help. We don't want to...His attitude is very clear", said Justice Gavai. When the petitioner remained adamant, the Court showed inclination to dismiss the petition.

"We will pass such stringent observations against him that no employer will dare to employ him. He is a director of protocol. He must be thinking he is close to the government...We are never such harsh, but here we can read between the lines. His adamancy speaks volumes. If he remains adamant, we will not only dismiss, we will also ensure that he is not re-instated. We could not have been more lenient", warned Justice Gavai.

Ultimately, at Bharuka's request, the matter was adjourned to Friday. Before parting with the matter, Justice Gavai said, "He has thrown people out of their houses. We don't want to be like him".

On an earlier occasion, the top Court had come down heavily on the petitioner but ultimately, taking a lenient view, issued notice. At the same time however, it was orally indicated that he would have to do prison-time, pay heavy costs to all the persons who suffered due to his actions, and suffer demotion. In response to a plea for leniency, as the petitioner has 2 minor children, Justice Gavai had noted that the slum-dwellers whom he dis-housed also had children.

Background

Four persons, claiming to be in possession of certain land in Guntur District, filed representations before the Revenue authorities, for grant of house site pattas for the lands, which were said to be in their occupation. Thereafter, they approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that the revenue authorities were seeking to evict them from the plots in their occupation without considering their representations.

By order dated 13.09.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' application for grant of house site subject to their eligibility and to communicate the decision taken within a period of two months. It was further directed that none of the respondents, including the Tahsildar shall disturb the possession of the petitioners, if they are in possession of the lands.

Another set of people approached the High Court contending that they were in possession of lands in the Guntur district since 2 years and were sought to be removed without considering their representations for grant of house sites. In their case, by order dated 11.12.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the petition, observing that the Tahsildar could not take law into his own hands by indulging in forcible removal of the structures. The people represented by the petitioner-union were restrained from raising any structures till their representations for grant of house site pattas were considered and the Tahsildar warned against repeating his acts in future.

Thereafter, the petitioners in both the cases filed contempt petitions, contending that despite the High Court's orders, the Tahsildar forcibly removed their huts on 06.12.2013 and 08.01.2014.

After noting that as many as 88 police personnel were brought to the site on 08.01.2014 at the request of the Tahsildar, the High Court (Single Bench) held that the Tahsildar acted in deliberate, utter disobedience of the Court orders and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months as well as pay fine of Rs.2000/-.

Aggrieved, the Tahsildar filed contempt appeals. His contention was that he only sought to remove encroachments from the sites, which were erected by third parties overnight. However, the same were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, noting that the stance was bereft of details and not very credible. In this backdrop, the Tahsildar moved the Supreme Court.

Yesterday, Justice Gavai enquired about the persons whose slums were demolished. In response, Sr Adv Bharuka submitted that pursuant to a fact-finding enquiry, the contempt petitioners were not found to be living at the subject premises and one of them was in fact rehabilitated under a scheme.

"What about the demolition part? In violation of the High Court order? Imagine the plight of those persons (whose houses were demolished)...", posed Justice KV Viswanathan to Bharuka in response.

Subsequently, Justice Gavai expressed that the Court would demote the petitioner to the post at which he was initially appointed, that is, Deputy Tahsildar, "so that his bread and butter is not affected". "Ask him to give an undertaking that he is willing to work as Deputy Tahsildar", the judge said, while underlining that it was a very serious matter, inasmuch as the demolition action was carried out despite the High Court's warning to the petitioner.

"[He carried] a fleet of 80 policemen along with him to demolish the houses of poor people", Justice Gavai noted. When Bharuka, without defending the action, sought to explain that at the relevant time there was tension between States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and government land was being encroached, Justice Gavai ordered dismissal of the petition. "You tried to justify on the other day also!", remarked the judge.

Apologizing, Bharuka urged that he would not justify the action and sought time to take instructions from the petitioner.

Case Title: TATA MOHAN RAO Versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025