Supreme Court upholds judgment faulting panel for sealing pvt properties

The Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed that citizens should not live in fear of “extra-statutory” bodies, upholding its 2020 judgment that faulted the actions of the Monitoring Committee in sealing residential properties in Delhi that were not being misused for commercial purposes.

A bench led by justice BR Gavai dismissed two review petitions challenging the August 14, 2020, order passed in the MC Mehta case, which had ruled that the committee overstepped its mandate by acting against private residential properties.

“Courts cannot interfere in everything. To what extent can courts interfere? Then let the executive and legislature wind up,” the bench, also comprising justices PK Mishra and AG Masih, observed.

The two review petitions were filed by former Delhi chief secretary Omesh Saigal and the Delhi Pradesh Citizen Council. Due to Saigal’s advanced age, the matter was argued by senior advocate S. Gurukrishna Kumar, who serves as amicus curiae in the MC Mehta case.

Kumar told the court that while the Monitoring Committee was appointed by the Supreme Court to check unauthorised commercial activities, the 2020 ruling held it had no jurisdiction to take action against residential properties not misused for commercial purposes.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for affected property owners, argued that the committee had clearly overreached. Several properties sealed by the committee were later de-sealed by court orders, they pointed out.

The 2020 judgment had stated: “The Monitoring Committee is not authorised to take action concerning the residential premises situated on private land... which were not misused for commercial purposes... nor could it have directed the demolition of those residential properties.”

Referring to these observations, justice Gavai-led bench reiterated this on Thursday: “Why should citizens have fears about an extra-statutory body?”

Kumar, however, defended the panel’s broader mandate. He said the committee had done exemplary work curbing commercial misuse in Delhi and was originally given wide powers by the court to oversee enforcement, particularly due to the failure of municipal and environmental regulators.

The Monitoring Committee was constituted by the court in March 2006 after observing that blatant violations of Delhi’s master plan, municipal laws, and environmental regulations required urgent judicial intervention. Kumar noted that due to the inaction and complicity of statutory authorities, the court had tasked the committee with inspecting and sealing illegal structures.

While the bench acknowledged the committee’s contributions, it made clear that such a body could not exercise powers vested exclusively with statutory agencies. “We have appreciated the committee for the work that they have done,” the bench said. “But its authority cannot override that of civic and regulatory agencies.”

The 2020 ruling had clarified that the court had not appointed the committee to monitor every residential property on private land that was not misused. “The court itself is monitoring this matter for a limited public purpose. It has not taken away the powers of statutory authorities under the Act, except for matters specified in the order,” the judgment said.