MUMBAI, November 4, 2026 — The Supreme Court has ordered that Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner Ashwini Bhide’s November salary be withheld and issued her a show-cause notice over the civic body’s failure to remove encroachments from land earmarked for a bus station in Borivali. The court also rejected the BMC’s request for another 30 days to complete the work and imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the municipal corporation.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the civic body had not complied with earlier time-bound directions. The order requires Bhide to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her for the alleged wilful breach of the court’s directions. The notice is a step in the proceedings; it is not a final finding of contempt against the commissioner.
The dispute concerns a plot in Borivali reserved for a Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) bus station and an administrative building. The Supreme Court had earlier directed that the land be made available for the public project and that unauthorised occupation be removed. The continuing delay brought the matter back before the Bench after the BMC sought additional time to complete the eviction process.
Also read: Bombay High Court Directs BMC to Re-upload Dia Mirza’s Environmental Awareness Video
The court’s earlier directions included an order dated November 13, 2025, followed by a further order on July 28, 2026. In July, the Bench gave the municipal body three months to take the necessary steps and submit a compliance report. The court had also indicated that pending civil proceedings would not, by themselves, prevent the BMC from acting on its notices where no interim stay barred the action.
During the latest hearing, the BMC sought a further 30 days. The Bench declined the request, saying sufficient time had already been provided. The Indian Express reported that the court had previously asked the commissioner to file a personal affidavit setting out details of occupants, notices issued, replies received and documents produced by people claiming rights over the land.
The Bench expressed concern about the prolonged failure to implement its directions and raised questions about whether officials were protecting those occupying the property. Those remarks were made in the course of the hearing and should be distinguished from established findings about any individual officer’s conduct. The contempt notice gives the commissioner an opportunity to respond to the court’s concerns.
The salary restraint is an unusual compliance measure directed at senior civic administration. Reports of the hearing said the commissioner’s November salary was to be withheld, with the Bench indicating that payment would remain stopped until the court’s directions were carried out. The court also imposed a ₹5 lakh cost on the BMC. The immediate requirement for the civic body is therefore both procedural and practical: respond to the notice and demonstrate that it has acted on the land-clearance directions.
The project is intended to provide land for a BEST bus facility in Borivali. Delays in making the site available can affect the planning and delivery of public transport infrastructure, although the court proceedings do not quantify the effect on bus operations or set out a revised completion schedule. The next steps will depend on the BMC’s compliance, the commissioner’s response and any further directions issued by the Bench.
The case also highlights the distinction between issuing eviction notices and completing an order. A municipal body may face legal challenges from occupants, but it must explain what steps it has taken, whether any court has stayed the action and why the timetable set by the Supreme Court was not met. The court’s latest intervention makes clear that it expects a substantive compliance report rather than another request for time.
The commissioner has been asked to show cause, and the municipal corporation has been directed to bear the costs. Until the court considers the response, the allegations of wilful disobedience remain part of the proceedings and should not be treated as a final adjudication of personal liability.