Despite his conviction, Rao, who had since been promoted to Deputy Collector and was serving as Director (Protocol) for the Andhra Pradesh government, challenged the contempt ruling before the Supreme Court.
Published Apr 23, 2025 | 11:05 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 23, 2025 | 11:05 AM
The Supreme Court of India. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court reprimanded an Andhra Pradesh Deputy Collector for deliberately violating a 2013 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that prohibited the demolition of slum dwellers’ homes in Guntur district.
The Supreme Court on Monday, 21 April 2025, sharply reprimanded an Andhra Pradesh Deputy Collector, Tata Mohan Rao, for deliberately violating a 2013 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that prohibited the demolition of slum dwellers’ homes in Guntur district. Acting in his former role as Tahsildar, Rao led the demolition operations with the support of 80 police officers, defying clear judicial directives.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih expressed strong displeasure at Rao’s conduct, underscoring that no public official is above the law. Justice Gavai warned that anyone who disrespects the dignity of the High Court would face immediate arrest, emphasising that leniency would not be granted to those who flout court orders.
The controversy arose from slum dwellers in the Guntur district who had applied for land ownership titles (pattas) for their occupied plots. The high court had, in December 2013, ordered the Tahsildar to process these applications within two months and explicitly barred any disruption of the occupants’ possession during the process.
Nevertheless, demolitions were carried out on 6 December 2013 and 8 January 2014, with the latter operation personally led by Rao, accompanied by 80 police personnel.
Following these actions, the affected residents filed contempt petitions against Rao for wilful disobedience of the High Court’s order. The court found him guilty of contempt, sentencing him to two months of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹2,000. Rao’s subsequent appeal to a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dismissed.
Despite his conviction, Rao, who had since been promoted to Deputy Collector and was serving as Director (Protocol) for the Andhra Pradesh government, challenged the contempt ruling before the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the court was unimpressed by his plea for leniency based on his family responsibilities, including two minor children.
Justice Gavai retorted by asking whether Rao had considered the children of the displaced slum dwellers when he ordered the demolitions.
The court also mocked Rao’s current role, sarcastically suggesting that if his job now involved welcoming VIPs and clearing roads by demolishing slums, he should “enjoy state hospitality” in jail or face heavy costs imposed for the damage caused to the affected families. The bench even hinted at the possibility of demoting him back to his former position as Tahsildar or lower ranks as a consequence of his misconduct.
While the Supreme Court acknowledged the petition filed by Rao, it made clear that disobedience of judicial orders would not be tolerated and that public officials must respect the rule of law. The court issued a notice on the matter, staying the High Court’s order temporarily but signaling stern action ahead.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
