New Delhi: The Supreme Court has clarified that its landmark judgment on bulldozer demolitions does not impose a blanket ban on demolition drives. At the same time, it stressed that authorities cannot use bulldozers as a tool to selectively target individuals, and every demolition must strictly comply with the law and established procedures.
Hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging arbitrary demolitions, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ruled that each case must be examined on its own facts. The court held that High Courts are the appropriate forums to determine whether legal procedures were followed and declined to entertain the contempt petitions directly.
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that bulldozers are necessary to remove illegal encroachments and uphold the rule of law, but cautioned that demolition drives must never become punitive measures against specific individuals. The bench emphasised that the key questions in every case are whether the structure was legally authorised and whether authorities complied with the prescribed legal process before taking action.
The court noted that allegations of targeted demolitions involve disputed questions of fact, making them unsuitable for contempt proceedings. It transferred all pending petitions to the respective High Courts, directing them to independently examine official records, notices and evidence before reaching any conclusions. The apex court also clarified that notices previously issued in contempt matters should not influence the High Courts while deciding the cases.
During the proceedings, senior lawyers appearing for petitioners alleged that several demolitions were carried out selectively and without following the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in its November 2024 judgment. They cited cases involving religious structures, commercial establishments and properties allegedly demolished after political statements calling for “bulldozer justice.”
The Supreme Court, however, maintained that such claims require detailed factual verification and cannot be decided without examining records and evidence. It also restored a petition from Madhya Pradesh for fresh consideration by the High Court and directed that interim protection granted in the affected cases will continue until the respective High Courts hear and decide the matters.
