The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to directly hear several contempt petitions alleging illegal “bulldozer action” by state authorities, saying such cases should first be examined by the respective High Courts. At the same time, the apex court made it clear that while authorities are free to remove illegal constructions, the law cannot be used to selectively target individuals.
The bench observed that demolitions must always follow due legal procedure and should never become a tool to punish specific people.
High Courts Asked to Examine Every Case
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said each demolition case involves different facts and evidence. Because of this, High Courts are the appropriate forums to determine whether officials followed the Supreme Court’s guidelines issued in November 2024.
The court explained that contempt proceedings are not meant to investigate detailed factual disputes such as whether notices were served, whether permissions existed or whether the demolition followed legal procedures.
Supreme Court Warns Against Selective Demolitions
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that bulldozers are necessary when authorities act against illegal encroachments, but warned that the law must not be applied selectively.
He said, “Yes, bulldozers need to be used when the rule of law is throttled by comfortable corruption between authorities and illegal encroachers. But in the guise of implementing law, there should not be characterisation of individuals. It runs against basic tenets…. The question is whether a person had authorisation and procedure of law was followed?”
The court stressed that the legality of every demolition depends on whether authorities followed due process instead of acting arbitrarily.
Petitioners Alleged Violations of Earlier Supreme Court Order
Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners argued that several recent demolitions violated the Supreme Court’s earlier directions.
One lawyer claimed that demolitions in Gujarat’s Somnath targeted religious structures despite them allegedly not standing on public land. Another advocate argued that some demolitions in Maharashtra appeared punitive because political leaders publicly announced “bulldozer justice” before the action took place.
In another case, counsel alleged that a fruit juice stall was demolished while television cameras broadcast the operation live.
Court Says Facts Must Be Verified
The Supreme Court, however, maintained that these allegations require examination of official records, notices and evidence, which High Courts are better equipped to handle.
Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the November 2024 judgment already allows demolitions in certain situations, including illegal encroachments on public land and roads. Once authorities claim a structure falls within those exceptions, the matter becomes a factual dispute that cannot be decided through contempt proceedings alone.
The court questioned why it should examine records from across the country when High Courts have the authority to summon documents and verify evidence.
One Madhya Pradesh Case Sent Back
The Bench also dealt with a petition from Madhya Pradesh where the High Court had earlier declined to hear the matter after observing that the district collector was unaware of the Supreme Court’s previous judgment.
The apex court set aside that order and directed the High Court to hear the matter afresh.
What This Means for Common People
The Supreme Court has not banned bulldozer action. Instead, it has clarified that governments can remove illegal constructions if they follow the law.
However, the court has also sent a strong message that demolitions cannot be carried out to target specific individuals or communities. Every action must be backed by legal notice, proper procedure and official records.
People who believe their property was demolished illegally should now approach the respective High Courts, which will examine whether authorities complied with the Supreme Court’s demolition guidelines.
