CHENNAI: The Supreme Court has directed a senior Tamil Nadu bureaucrat to appear before it on August 4 and explain why proceedings should not be initiated against her over an affidavit which, the bench said, appeared to defend, rather than investigate an illegal building in Chennai.
In a strongly-worded order, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan asked Kakarla Usha, then secretary of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department, to file a written explanation and remain personally present at the next hearing.
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 (owner of the building), whose special leave petition had already been dismissed by the court on February 16.
The bench also directed all states and union territories to file fresh affidavits, sworn by senior officials, detailing action taken against illegal constructions and unauthorised changes in land use.
The case arose from Loganathan’s challenge to action against an unauthorised building in Chennai. While dismissing his petition in February, the Supreme Court found that the building had been constructed without any sanctioned plan and observed that such a violation could not have occurred without the “collusion and connivance” of municipal officials. It directed the state government to investigate the lapse.
The court also questioned a 2024 order issued by the HUD department directing that no coercive action be taken against the violators despite a Madras High Court direction to deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law.
Saying it was “unable to comprehend” how such an order could have been passed despite an admitted violation, the bench directed the state to identify the officer responsible.
The judges reserved their strongest criticism for Usha’s 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 the interim protection to him (Loganathan) in February, the unauthorised structure remained standing more than three months later, a circumstance that “prima facie suggests connivance”.
HUD officials could not be reached for a comment
