The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to directly hear a batch of contempt petitions alleging illegal property demolitions, directing the aggrieved parties to approach their respective state high courts to resolve the underlying factual disputes.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana decided to transfer the records of the proceedings to the concerned high courts. The top court instructed the high courts to call for relevant records and, if necessary, obtain evidence through district courts to determine all factual issues.
While clarifying that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Supreme Court ruled that the interim protection it previously granted will continue during the pendency of the high court proceedings. The bench requested the high courts to resolve the cases preferably within four months, noting that parties remain free to seek modifications of the interim orders in the interim.
Factual Disputes and Arguments
During the hearing, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing petitioners in a case involving the demolition of mosques in Somnath, argued that no public land encroachment had occurred. He alleged egregious violations of court directives, stating that local authorities acted in direct defiance of the Supreme Court’s orders.
Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the primary dispute appears to be whether due procedure was followed, with authorities claiming compliance and the petitioners denying it. He suggested that ordering a status quo and letting the high courts decide the matter was the most appropriate course of action.
Representing petitioners in a separate contempt case from Maharashtra, senior advocate CU Singh argued that many demolitions are carried out as punitive actions, often initiated after local politicians demand bulldozer action. He contended that if the Supreme Court does not stand up for its own judgments, it would undermine the judicial process.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that judicial directions are meant to reiterate statutory rights and should not be read as rigid statutes. He noted that the court’s 2024 judgment was prompted by a shocked judicial conscience and grounded in the presumption of innocence. He added that while bulldozers are necessary to dismantle collusion between corrupt authorities and illegal encroachers, the law must not be used to target specific individuals. The central question, he emphasized, is whether authorities possessed proper authorization and adhered to legal procedures.
The 2024 Demolition Guidelines
The contempt petitions stem from a landmark pan-India ruling delivered by the Supreme Court on November 13, 2024, which established strict guidelines on property demolitions. In that judgment, the court condemned bulldozer justice, ruling that the executive branch cannot assume the role of a judge, declare an accused person guilty, and demolish their property.
The court had declared it totally unconstitutional to demolish houses simply because the residents are accused or convicted of a crime. Under the 2024 guidelines, no demolition can proceed without a prior show-cause notice. This notice must be returnable either within the timeframe designated by local municipal laws or within 15 days of service, whichever period is longer.
The 2024 ruling also mandated that affected parties must be granted sufficient time to challenge demolition orders before an appropriate forum. Even in cases where residents do not wish to contest the order, they must be given adequate time to vacate the premises and manage their personal affairs.
