The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition challenging the ongoing demolition drive in Gurugram, Haryana. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the plea, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court for urgent relief.
Observing the High Court’s primary role in overseeing the matter, the Bench requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to hear the petitioners’ mentioning today, either at 1:00 PM or immediately after the lunch recess at 1:45 PM.
The legal conflict stems from an interim order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 2. In that order, the High Court stayed the Haryana government’s “stilt-plus-four floors” building policy. This policy had allowed for the construction of four residential floors above stilt parking, an increase from the previous limit of three floors.
The High Court had expressed serious concerns that the state appeared to be prioritizing revenue over public safety. Following this stay, local authorities in Gurugram initiated a widespread anti-encroachment campaign against unauthorized constructions and encroachments.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the residents, argued that the local authorities were misconstruing the High Court’s interim order. He contended that the drive was being used to demolish “completely legal constructions” belonging to individual residents.
Furthermore, the counsel alleged that the authorities were proceeding with the demolitions without issuing the mandatory show-cause notices. He urged the Supreme Court to grant a status quo order for three to four days to allow the residents time to seek legal recourse from the High Court.
The Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the allegations that the authorities were misinterpreting judicial orders, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked:
“If the high court, in its constitutional duty, is taking a drive to stop or prevent or dismantle the unauthorised constructions, then as an apex body, why should we cause hindrance?”
The Bench emphasized that if an interim order of the High Court was being misapplied, the appropriate remedy lay with that same court. Consequently, the Apex Court refused to grant the requested status quo, instead facilitating an immediate hearing before the High Court.
