The Supreme Court on Thursday transferred a batch of contempt petitions alleging violations of its landmark November 2024 judgment against “bulldozer justice” to the respective jurisdictional High Courts, holding that disputes over compliance with its demolition guidelines involve disputed questions of fact that are best examined by constitutional courts at the State level.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana held that the safeguards laid down in its earlier judgment constitute binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution, determining whether authorities actually violated those directions required a detailed factual inquiry into issues such as whether the land is public or private, whether the construction is authorised or unauthorised, whether statutory notices were issued, whether affected persons were granted an opportunity of hearing and whether due process prescribed under the applicable municipal and revenue laws was followed before demolition.
The Bench observed that every demolition dispute would involve different factual circumstances and that the Supreme Court, exercising contempt jurisdiction, cannot conduct such fact-finding in each individual case. It noted that where authorities contend that the statutory procedure was followed and petitioners allege otherwise, the controversy must be adjudicated after examining evidence and records, making the High Courts the appropriate forum for deciding such disputes.
Accordingly, the Court directed that all pending contempt petitions be transferred to the concerned High Courts, which will determine whether the demolished properties are situated on public or private land, whether the structures were legally authorised, whether the statutory safeguards and the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines were complied with, and whether any violation amounts to civil contempt warranting appropriate action.
The High Courts were requested to decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within four months, after permitting parties to file additional pleadings and lead evidence, if necessary, including through the jurisdictional district courts.
The Bench clarified that the interim protection and status quo orders earlier granted by the Supreme Court would continue to operate until the High Courts decide the cases. However, the parties have been granted liberty to seek modification of the interim directions before the respective High Courts, which shall consider such requests independently.
During the hearing, the Court emphasised that if any authority demolishes a structure in violation of the Supreme Court’s binding directions, appropriate legal consequences must follow. At the same time, where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the nature of the property, legality of construction or applicability of statutory exceptions, such issues cannot be conclusively determined in contempt proceedings before the apex court without recording evidence.
The Bench further clarified that its November 2024 judgment was never intended to protect illegal encroachments or unauthorised constructions. It observed that the foundation of the earlier ruling was the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of due process, not municipal law alone.
The Court reiterated that its concern was to prevent authorities from selectively targeting properties of accused persons or particular individuals under the guise of enforcing municipal laws, thereby using demolition as a punitive measure before judicial determination of guilt. It stressed that statutory requirements governing demolition, including issuance of notice, opportunity of hearing and adherence to prescribed procedures, continue to apply irrespective of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing in one of the petitions relating to the demolition of a mosque, argued that certain matters involved egregious and deliberate violations of the Supreme Court’s directions and therefore deserved adjudication by the apex court itself.
He contended that the case concerned private property with sanctioned construction rather than public encroachment and alleged that demolition had been carried out despite protective orders passed by the High Court. He further submitted that the demolition followed statements by a politician questioning the existence of the mosque, indicating targeted action.
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that several demolitions across States were preceded by public declarations from political leaders promising bulldozer action, suggesting that such demolitions were punitive rather than regulatory. He argued that in some cases the State’s own affidavits disclosed non-compliance with the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde also referred to a case involving demolition of a fruit juice stall that was televised live, alleging arbitrary exercise of executive power.
However, the Court observed that the November 2024 judgment itself carved out exceptions for encroachments on public land and that whenever authorities rely on such exceptions, factual adjudication becomes necessary. Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that the earlier judgment was delivered because the Court was concerned about demolitions being used as punishment against accused persons without due process, thereby undermining the presumption of innocence.
At the same time, he clarified that bulldozers may legitimately be used against illegal constructions and encroachments where action is taken strictly in accordance with law. The judge observed that the rule of law requires authorities to act uniformly without targeting individuals while ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards before any demolition is carried out.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati opposed the maintainability of the contempt petitions before the Supreme Court, submitting that each matter involved distinct factual issues requiring separate examination. The Court agreed that High Courts and district courts are institutionally better equipped to undertake such inquiries while enforcing the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
In one matter from Madhya Pradesh, Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar informed the Bench that the High Court had declined to entertain a challenge on the ground that the District Collector had no notice of the Supreme Court’s demolition judgment. Taking note of the submission, the apex court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The contempt petitions arose from allegations that several State authorities had violated the Supreme Court’s November 2024 judgment, which laid down mandatory safeguards against arbitrary demolitions. The judgment had directed that no demolition should ordinarily be undertaken without prior notice, opportunity of hearing and compliance with statutory procedures, while also requiring local authorities to establish digital portals for uploading demolition notices.
The Court had held that executive authorities cannot punish an accused person by demolishing property without following due process, while clarifying that its directions do not prevent lawful action against illegal encroachments or unauthorised structures in accordance with the applicable municipal and revenue laws.
The post Bulldozer justice: Supreme Court transfers pleas alleging violation of 2024 verdict to High Courts appeared first on India Legal.