Excavators remove the rubble at the site of five storey building-collapse at Saket, in New Delhi. File
| Photo Credit: ANI
The Supreme Court on Monday (June 8, 2026) declined to accord an urgent hearing on a status report filed by a court-appointed amicus curiae seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in connection with the collapse of an unauthorised five-storey building in Delhi’s Saidulajab area that claimed six lives and injured at least 14 others on May 30.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar declined to grant an urgent hearing on the report. “Mentioning rejected. No orders required to be passed,” the Bench said.
In his status report, senior advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to direct the MCD to file an affidavit detailing how the illegal construction was allowed to continue and the action taken against officials responsible for the lapse. It also sought directions for a “structural audit” of unauthorised constructions across the national capital and for illegal structures to be sealed and demolished expeditiously.
The report was filed in proceedings arising out of a March 25 order passed by a Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan. While hearing a matter concerning illegal constructions in Tamil Nadu, the Bench had expressed serious concern over “widespread and blatant violations of building bye-laws and land-use regulations” and ordered a pan-India inquiry into the rampant conversion of residential premises for commercial use.
The Bench had appointed Mr. Sinha as amicus curiae to assist the court. In his report, he pointed out that the Bench had granted him liberty to seek the court’s intervention and appropriate directions as and when required.
‘Blind eye’
Mr. Sinha alleged that the MCD had failed to discharge its statutory obligations despite repeated notice of the violations. He submitted that the civic body had failed to seal the premises or take any action, even as additional floors were constructed illegally at the Saidulajab property.
The report filed through advocate Govind Jee stated that such unauthorised construction could not have continued for nearly a decade unless officials responsible for enforcing the law had “turned a blind eye” to the violations. It pointed out that MCD records themselves reflected a long history of unauthorised construction at the property.
According to the amicus, although the building was initially sanctioned only for a basement, ground floor and first floor, the illegal construction of the second and third floors was carried out in 2015. This was followed by the construction of the unauthorised fourth and fifth floors, resulting in the collapse of the entire building
“The gross violation and illegal construction which went on since 2015 ultimately led to the horrific and unfortunate incident where innocent students and residents of the locality lost their lives, whereas the beneficiary of the said illegal structures, as well as officers who failed to discharge their statutory obligations, are still enjoying the benefits derived from the unauthorised construction and by letting the illegality continue in perpetuity,” the report stated.
‘A mere eyewash’
Mr. Sinha contended that the suspension of two MCD engineers following the mishap was a “mere eyewash” and a “post-facto and cosmetic exercise” by the civic body.
Accordingly, the amicus urged the apex court to direct the MCD to file an affidavit detailing the action taken against illegal and unauthorised constructions in the national capital, as well as the unauthorised commercial use of residential premises. He also sought directions for a “structural audit” of such properties and for illegal structures to be sealed and demolished expeditiously.
Taking note of the fatalities caused by the mishap, the amicus also sought directions to the Delhi government to furnish an affidavit detailing the compensation proposed for the families of the deceased.
‘Fraud on the system’
In its March 25 order, the top court had directed municipal authorities to conduct surveys of illegal constructions and cautioned that the exercise should not become a “mere ritualistic” formality. It had also directed all statutory appellate authorities and quasi-judicial forums dealing with violations of building norms and unauthorised constructions to dispose of pending matters, as far as possible, within three months.
Notably, the court had also expressed strong reservations about the MCD’s stand on the issue of unauthorised change of land use. Recording its dissatisfaction with the civic body’s submission that Delhi’s Master Plan 2021 permitted multiple uses, the Bench headed by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah had observed that while the master plan may allow different categories of use, a person who obtains sanction for a building for a particular purpose cannot subsequently alter its use. Such a change, the court said, would amount to “nothing short of a fraud on the system”.
“This aspect appears to have been completely glossed over by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and may even indicate tacit collusion and connivance with the violators for extraneous considerations, which are neither difficult to comprehend nor unknown,” the Bench had recorded in its order.
Published – June 09, 2026 01:03 am IST
