{"id":392651,"date":"2026-08-07T10:00:15","date_gmt":"2026-08-07T04:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=392651"},"modified":"2026-08-07T10:01:01","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T04:31:01","slug":"sc-flags-illegal-coaching-centres-jaipur-orders-nationwide-crackdown","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/08\/07\/sc-flags-illegal-coaching-centres-jaipur-orders-nationwide-crackdown\/","title":{"rendered":"“Not Only Shocking but also Alarming”: SC Flags Illegal Coaching Centres Operating in Jaipur\u2019s Residential Areas; Launches Pan-India Crackdown"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> What began as a challenge to demolition proceedings against an unauthorised construction in Chennai evolved into a pan-India drive against illegal constructions and blatantly violation of the sanctioned land use prescribed under the Master Plan. The Court uncovered a pattern of administrative inaction, official connivance, rampant unauthorised constructions, and illegal conversion of residential areas for commercial use. Treating the issue as one of national importance, the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, JJ., expanded the proceedings to include all States, Union Territories, municipal corporations and planning authorities and issued comprehensive directions for strict enforcement of building bye-laws and Master Plans.<\/p>\n

The Court also addressed the issue of coaching institutes operating from commercial areas, causing hardship to residents despite the Government having constructed dedicated multi-storeyed complexes for their relocation and recent incident occurred in Lucknow in which 15 students lost their lives in a building being used for commercial purposes for which a demolition order had been passed in 2016, but subsequently recalled on a technical ground, and no further action had been taken until the fatal incident occurred. Viewing these incidents as consequences of unchecked violations of sanctioned land use and prolonged administrative and appellate delays, the Court issued further directions.<\/p>\n

Also Read: Delhi HC directs MCD to conduct survey of constructions near heritage properties to ensure compliance with sanctioned plans<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The instant matter arose out of an unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner without obtaining a sanctioned building plan. The original special leave petition (SLP) challenging the demolition proceedings stood dismissed on 16 February 2026. While declining to interfere, the Court expressed serious concern that a G+1 (Ground floor + one upper floor) building had been completed without sanction and without timely intervention by the municipal authorities.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that such a construction could not ordinarily come up unnoticed and remarked that it \u201cspeaks volumes about the conduct and the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation\u201d. It further observed that the completion of an entire structure without preventive action indicated an \u201calarming state of affairs\u201d and could not have occurred without \u201ccollusion and connivance of the Municipal Authorities\u201d. Consequently, instead of treating the matter as a dispute confined to the petitioner, the Court initiated an inquiry into the larger issue of illegal constructions and failure of municipal enforcement.<\/p>\n

Procedural History<\/p>\n

First Stage \u2014 Individual Dispute (Order dated 16 February 2026)<\/p>\n

The Court dismissed the SLP, thereby permitting the authorities to proceed in accordance with law against the unauthorised construction. Simultaneously, the Court directed the State Government to examine how such a substantial construction had escaped municipal scrutiny.<\/p>\n

Second Stage \u2014 Order dated 25 March 2026<\/p>\n

Upon considering the affidavit of the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, the Court found that the explanation regarding jurisdiction did not answer the larger concerns raised earlier.<\/p>\n

The Court also noticed that an order dated 22 March 2024 issued by the Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, appeared to have protected persons who had violated building norms by directing that no coercive action be taken. The Court observed that it was unable to comprehend how such relief could have been granted despite an evident violation and despite judicial directions requiring strict adherence to law.<\/p>\n

Finding that the issue transcended the facts of the individual case, the Court noted that:<\/p>\n