NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Thursday said demolition drives cannot be used as a form of punishment against accused persons, but made it clear that authorities are well within their rights to act against illegal encroachments if due process is followed.
The observation came while the court was hearing a batch of petitions alleging that several state authorities had violated its November 2024 ruling against the “bulldozer justice.”
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N. Kotiswar Singh, declined to entertain the contempt petitions directly. Instead, it asked the petitioners to approach the respective High Courts, saying the allegations involved disputed questions of fact that would have to be examined individually, reported Indian Express.
The Bench noted that every demolition case turns on its own facts, requiring courts to examine official records and determine whether legal procedures were followed.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi remarked that bulldozers are justified where illegal encroachments flourish because of what he described as a “comfortable corruption” between municipal authorities and encroachers. At the same time, he cautioned that the law must not become a means to selectively target or intimidate individuals.
He recalled that the court’s 2024 judgment was delivered in the backdrop of cases where properties belonging to people accused of crimes were demolished without following the rule of law. Such actions, he said, undermined the constitutional principle that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The judges stressed that the earlier ruling cannot be read in isolation from the circumstances in which it was delivered. While the judgment protects citizens from arbitrary demolitions, it does not shield genuinely unauthorised structures built on public land such as roads, footpaths, railway land, riverbeds or other public spaces.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the petitions before the court related to incidents from different states and that each would require a separate factual inquiry.
Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners urged the Supreme Court to itself examine whether its earlier directions had been violated instead of asking litigants to move the High Courts.
One of the petitioners’ lawyers referred to the demolition of a fruit juice stall, alleging that the action had become a public spectacle, with a television anchor arriving at the site on a bulldozer. The Bench responded that the crucial question was not whether a demolition had taken place, but whether the structure was authorised and whether the authorities had followed the procedure prescribed by law.
Another petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, alleged that a mosque had been demolished despite interim protection granted by the High Court. He argued that no action had been taken against the structure for decades and that proceedings were initiated only after a local politician questioned its existence. According to him, the property was not accused of encroaching on public land, making the action an instance of selective enforcement.
Senior Advocate C.U. Singh argued that the Supreme Court should itself ensure compliance with its earlier ruling. Responding to the concern, Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court stood firmly by its judgment but added that High Courts were the appropriate forums to examine individual allegations of non-compliance.
The Bench ultimately reiterated that while its 2024 ruling remains binding, any claim that authorities violated those directions must first be examined on the facts of each case by the concerned High Court.
