India Tomorrow
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, while addressing a series of petitions challenging “bulldozer actions,” has issued an interim order prohibiting any demolitions across the country without its prior approval. This order, however, excludes demolitions related to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or waterbodies.
The Court made it clear that its directive does not apply to unauthorized constructions on public streets, footpaths, or other public spaces.
Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan issued this order in response to claims that state governments were using demolitions as a punitive measure against individuals accused of crimes. The Court has scheduled the next hearing for October 1.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta objected to the Court’s decision, arguing that it unduly restricts the powers of statutory authorities. Despite these objections, the bench remained firm, suggesting that pausing demolitions for two weeks would not have dire consequences. Justice Gavai remarked, “Stay your hands. What will happen in 15 days?”
The Court’s directive was issued under its special powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution. Justice Viswanathan emphasized that even a single instance of illegal demolition contradicts constitutional values, stating, “Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of the Constitution.”
Justice Gavai further clarified that the Court would not intervene in cases of unauthorized construction but underscored that the executive should not act as judge. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh informed the Court that demolitions had continued despite its previous concerns. He highlighted a case where a person’s house was demolished on the same night he was accused of stone-pelting. Solicitor General Mehta explained that demolition notices were issued in 2022 and argued that the timing of the demolitions was unrelated to the accusations.
The bench questioned why properties were demolished abruptly in 2024 and reiterated its intent to establish guidelines to prevent the misuse of demolition powers. Justice Viswanathan emphasized, “Till next date, there should be a stay on demolition without leave of court.”
Mehta also suggested that a narrative was being constructed to imply that a particular community was being targeted. Justice Viswanathan dismissed these concerns, stating, “Outside noise is not influencing us. We won’t get into questions of community at this point. Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of the Constitution.”
The Court noted that after its previous order, which signalled its intent to formulate guidelines, there had been statements from Ministers indicating that demolitions would continue. Justice Gavai questioned whether such actions were appropriate and whether the Election Commission should be involved. The Court plans to issue directives to address these issues.
The current developments stem from petitions filed in 2022 concerning a scheduled demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. The drive was ultimately halted, but petitioners sought a declaration that authorities could not use demolitions as a form of punishment. Notably, former Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat challenged the demolitions by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation following communal violence in April 2022.
In September 2023, Senior Advocate Dave expressed concerns about the increasing trend of state governments demolishing the homes of individuals accused of crimes, arguing that the right to a home is an aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also urged the Court to order the reconstruction of demolished houses.
Recent applications have sought urgent relief against demolition actions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. One case from Udaipur involved the demolition of a house because the tenant’s son was accused of a crime. Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind argued that houses in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri were demolished post-riots in April 2022 based on allegations of instigating violence.
The Uttar Pradesh government contended that mere involvement in an offence cannot justify demolition. It maintained that notices were issued for violations and that demolitions followed municipal law procedures. In response, the Court asserted that properties cannot be demolished solely based on accusations. Justice Gavai remarked that even if someone is convicted, their house cannot be demolished arbitrarily, while Justice Viswanathan added that demolishing a home based on a family member’s actions is not acceptable.
This interim order follows a series of petitions contesting the legality of demolitions, particularly those carried out after riots or criminal allegations. Notably, demolitions in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri and other areas have been challenged because they were used punitively against those accused of crimes. The Supreme Court’s decision aims to ensure that demolitions adhere strictly to legal standards and protect constitutional rights.
The Court’s action underscores its role in upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that state actions conform to legal and human rights standards.
