Facts

The case arose in response to several instances where state authorities demolished residential and commercial buildings across various Indian states. These demolitions were reportedly linked to criminal allegations against the property owners. However, the petitioners—comprising activists and affected individuals—alleged that the demolitions were carried out without following proper legal procedures. They claimed that no prior notice was served, nor were the affected parties given an opportunity to be heard, as required by law.

The PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The petitioners argued that the demolitions violated their rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Shelter) and Article 300A (Right to Property). They contended that these actions amounted to punitive measures, executed without any judicial sanction or due process.

A significant trigger for the case was the demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area in 2022, which followed communal violence and led to widespread concern over arbitrary state action.

Issues

i. Can state authorities lawfully demolish structures allegedly involved in illegal activities or owned by alleged offenders without following due process of law?

ii. Are such demolitions in retaliation to alleged crimes violative of constitutional and legal rights?

iii. What guidelines must be followed before executing demolitions, especially in sensitive situations?

Analysis

• Power of the Supreme Court to Enforce Fundamental Rights- The Supreme Court has the authority to issue binding directions to ensure that fundamental rights are not only protected but effectively implemented. The Court emphasized that mere existence of a right is not enough; its actual enforcement and facilitation are equally important. Through its directions, the Court aimed to ensure that executive actions align with constitutional mandates and that violations do not go unchecked. This power includes crafting procedural safeguards that prevent abuse of state authority.

• Demolitions Violate the Right to Shelter and Due Process- The right to shelter is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, and the state must protect—not threaten—it. The Court noted that demolishing homes without notice or hearing destroys people’s security, dignity, and stability. The absence of procedural safeguards amounts to a denial of due process, which is fundamental to fair governance. Such actions reflect a breakdown of legal norms, where enforcement turns punitive without judicial sanction.

• Discriminatory and Arbitrary Use of Power- The Court observed a pattern of selective targeting—only certain individuals’ properties were being demolished, even when others nearby had similar violations. This raised serious concerns of discriminatory state conduct, contrary to the guarantee of equality before the law under Article 14. The explanation that demolitions were mere coincidence was rejected as unconvincing and problematic. Arbitrary implementation of municipal laws erodes public trust and legal fairness.

• Executive Overreach and Violation of Separation of Powers- The judiciary is the sole authority empowered to determine guilt and impose punishments—not the executive. By using demolitions as a form of punishment, the executive encroached upon judicial functions, violating the constitutional separation of powers. Such acts amount to vigilante-style governance, where legal procedures are bypassed in favor of instant retribution. The Court emphasized that rule of law cannot be replaced by rule by lawless enforcement.

• Disproportionate Nature of Bulldozer Demolitions- Even if a property violates local or municipal regulations, demolishing an entire structure is often disproportionate to the violation. The Court highlighted that many constructions could be regularized through compounding or partially corrected rather than demolished wholesale. The state must follow the least restrictive method, especially when people’s homes and livelihoods are at stake. Full demolition should be a last resort, not the default approach. The Court criticized demolitions that punish entire families and innocent residents for the alleged acts of one member. ‘A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family,’ Justice Gavai said. Such retributive demolitions amount to collective punishment, which is alien to Indian constitutional principles.

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that arbitrary and retaliatory demolitions by state authorities—especially without notice, hearing, or adherence to due process—violate fundamental rights, including Article 14- Right to equality before the law (due to discriminatory targeting), Article 19(1)(e)- Right to reside and settle in any part of India, Article 21- Right to life and shelter and Article 300A: Right to property (as a constitutional right).

The Court stressed that executive authorities cannot punish citizens by demolishing homes, especially in the absence of adjudication or proper legal proceedings. Demolition as a punitive tool, especially targeting individuals accused of crimes, undermines the constitutional framework, violates the principle of proportionality, and often results in collective punishment of innocent residents.

The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to issue binding pan-India guidelines to ensure that future demolitions comply with due process, fairness, and transparency. The Court laid down procedural framework to be mandatorily followed before carrying out any demolition-

• i. Written Notice (Advance and Registered Delivery)- A written notice must be served on the owner-occupier of the structure. Notice must be served 15 days prior to demolition, or as per municipal law—whichever is later. Delivery must be via registered post, and the notice period starts from the date of receipt.
• ii. Public Posting of Notice on the Property- The demolition notice must be visibly affixed to the outer wall or structure proposed to be demolished. This ensures public awareness and allows others (including tenants or co-residents) to respond.
• iii. Mandatory Contents of Notice- The notice must clearly state nature of unauthorised construction, grounds and specific legal violations, list of documents to be submitted in response, date of personal hearing and the authority before whom the hearing will take place
• iv. Notification to District Officials to Prevent Backdating- The Collector’s office and District Magistrate must be informed via email once notice is issued. An auto-generated reply confirming receipt must be preserved to prevent manipulation or backdating of records.
• v. Designation of Local Officer with Email Handle- A designated officer must be appointed in each district to oversee and document demolitions. All concerned municipal and local bodies must be notified within one month of this designation.
• vi. Establishment of Digital Portal- Every municipal authority must establish a digital portal within three months. The portal must display service of notice, reply from owner, show-cause notice, hearing details and final demolition order
• vii. Personal Hearing and Reasoned Final Order- The owner-occupier must be given a personal hearing. The final order must record owner’s contentions, give a reasoned conclusion on those contentions, specify whether compounding or partial demolition was possible and explain why full demolition was necessary.
• viii. Appellate Scrutiny and Mandatory Waiting Period- The final order can be challenged before an appellate authority. No demolition can take place for 15 days from the date of final order (which must be uploaded on the portal).
• ix. Voluntary Compliance Opportunity- The owner must be given 15 days to voluntarily remove the unauthorised part after receiving notice. Demolition by the state may only occur after this window, and only if compounding or partial removal is not feasible.
• x. Pre-Demolition Inspection Report- Before demolition, a detailed inspection report must be prepared and signed by two Panchas (independent witnesses).
• xi. Videography and Documentation of Demolition- The entire demolition process must be video graphed. A report must be prepared detailing the names of police and civil officials involved and record of actions taken. The report must be emailed to the Municipal Commissioner and uploaded to the digital portal. Video recordings must be preserved for accountability.
• xii. Violation of Guidelines: Contempt and Accountability- Any violation of these directions will amount to contempt of court. Public officials involved in unauthorised demolitions will be held personally responsible.