The Supreme Court has strongly rebuked the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) for its failure to adhere to court directives concerning commercial establishments operating in residential zones of Jaipur. The court noted that the authority did not appear before the bench nor submitted an affidavit detailing actions taken after conducting surveys, even as residents continued to lodge complaints about widespread violations.
Court's Observations
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan recorded that amicus curiae Ajit Kumar Sinha highlighted the JDA's absence from the proceedings. The bench treated this lapse as serious, particularly because the case involves enforcement of town planning norms and protection of residential neighborhoods from unregulated commercialization.
In an order dated May 20, the court clarified that the authority responsible for town planning, sanctioning building plans, enforcing building bylaws, and regulating land use cannot evade accountability by claiming that the Municipal Corporation had been impleaded in the case. The bench stressed that the concerned planning authority must respond to the proceedings.
Nationwide Context
The Jaipur case is part of a nationwide exercise initiated by the Supreme Court on March 25 while hearing a petition concerning unauthorized commercial activities in a residential colony in Chennai. The court had directed authorities in all state and Union Territory capitals to conduct surveys of residential areas used for commercial purposes and submit affidavits by May 15, 2026.
The bench observed that only three states have filed affidavits so far, and even those largely focused on survey findings rather than enforcement measures. Emphasizing that compliance cannot be merely procedural, the court directed all respondents, including the JDA, to file fresh affidavits detailing concrete action taken after the surveys.
Requirements for Affidavits
The affidavits must be personally sworn by the head of the concerned authority and disclose effective enforcement measures undertaken on the ground. The court clarified that such action may include sealing, demolition, or other lawful steps against violators, with complete details of enforcement provided.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 4.
