Supreme Court summons Tamil Nadu bureaucrat as Chennai's illegal construction case widens into nationwide review

C Shivakumar @ Chennai:
The Supreme Court has ordered a senior Tamil Nadu bureaucrat to appear before it next month to explain why proceedings should not be initiated against her over an affidavit the bench said appeared designed to protect, rather than investigate, an illegally constructed building, as it expanded the case into a nationwide review of planning law enforcement.

In a sharply worded order, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan directed Kakarla Usha, then Secretary in Tamil Nadu's Housing and Urban Development Department, to file a written explanation and remain personally present at the next hearing on August 4, 2026. The judges described her affidavit as "shocking", saying it reflected a "blatant disregard for the rule of law" and amounted to a "bold attempt to shield" Loganathan, whose special leave petition against the State of Tamil Nadu had already been dismissed by the court on February 16.

The bench also directed every state and union territory to file fresh affidavits, personally sworn by senior officials, detailing action taken against illegal construction and unauthorised land-use changes. It warned that officials who fail to comply with its directions or remain absent from future hearings could face contempt proceedings.

The proceedings stem from a petition filed by Loganathan challenging action taken against an unauthorised building in Chennai. While dismissing the petition in February, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had constructed a ground-plus-one building without any sanctioned plan, observing that such a structure could not have come up without the "collusion and connivance" of municipal officials. It directed the Tamil Nadu government to investigate the lapse and asked the Commissioner of the Greater Chennai Corporation to explain, through a personally sworn affidavit, how the violation had gone unchecked.

The Commissioner's response said the property was under the jurisdiction of the erstwhile Madhavaram Municipality when the construction took place rather than the Greater Chennai Corporation, an explanation the bench said it would keep "in abeyance".

The court was even more critical of a March 22, 2024 order issued by the Additional Secretary (Technical) in the Housing and Urban Development Department directing that no coercive action be taken against the violators despite a Madras High Court direction that the matter be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. Saying it was "unable to comprehend" how such an order could have been passed in the face of an admitted violation, the bench directed the state to identify the officer responsible and explain the decision.

Concluding that the Chennai case reflected a wider pattern of weak enforcement, the Supreme Court in March expanded the proceedings into a nationwide examination of illegal construction and misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes. It impleaded municipal corporations in every state and union territory capital, along with the Tamil Nadu government through its Chief Secretary, and appointed senior advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha as amicus curiae. Civic bodies were directed to audit their jurisdictions and submit reports identifying unauthorised commercial use of residential properties.

When the matter returned in May, Sinha told the court that only three states had filed affidavits and none had adequately detailed follow-up enforcement action. Referring to Delhi's Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar, he said buildings approved for two storeys had been expanded far beyond sanctioned plans, posing serious structural risks.

Rejecting arguments that mixed-use provisions under Delhi's Master Plan justified such deviations, the bench ruled that changing the approved use of a building after obtaining sanction amounted to "nothing short of a fraud on the system". It added that the failure of civic authorities to act could indicate "tacit collusion and connivance" with violators. The court also impleaded Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs secretary.

The judges reserved their strongest criticism for Usha's subsequent affidavit, saying it appeared "more in defence of the petitioner than reflective of the objective and responsible position expected from a senior public officer". They noted that despite the dismissal of the petition and the lifting of all interim protection in February, the unauthorised structure remained standing more than three months later, a circumstance that "prima facie suggests connivance". The court directed Tamil Nadu's counsel to immediately communicate its order requiring Usha's personal appearance and written explanation at the next hearing.
The state housing department could not be reached on what kind of action being initiated by the state against  following the Supreme Court's observation on illegal construction and misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes.