LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures

Not available · 2024 INSC 866Decided 13 Nov 2024
Not available
Justice B.R. Gavai · Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Background

This batch of petitions was filed by citizens across the country whose homes and shops had been demolished by state authorities shortly after they (or a family member) were named as accused in a criminal case: a practice popularly called "bulldozer justice." The petitioners argued that these demolitions were carried out without following the proper legal process (like notice or a hearing) and were really being used as an extra-legal punishment for being accused of a crime, before any court had found them guilty. The Union and various States, including Uttar Pradesh, argued that demolitions were only ever carried out for genuine, unrelated violations of building and municipal laws.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that a person's home cannot be demolished merely because they (or a family member) are accused of a crime, doing so violates the presumption of innocence, the separation of powers (since the executive would be usurping a court's punishing role), and the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it can amount to unconstitutional "collective punishment" of an entire family for one person's alleged guilt. To prevent this nationwide, the Court laid down detailed, pan-India binding directions: a written show-cause notice must be given before any demolition, listing the specific violation and giving at least 15 days to reply; the order deciding on demolition must be a reasoned one and displayed on a digital portal; occupants must get at least 15 more days after the final order before any demolition, and an opportunity to challenge it on appeal; and the entire demolition process must be video-recorded. It clarified this does not apply to encroachments on public land like roads or riverbanks, or to demolitions ordered by a court.

Lesson Learnt

Being accused (even formally chargesheeted) of a crime never gives the government the power to demolish your home or shop as an informal punishment: any demolition must follow due process (notice, reasoned order, time to respond, appeal, and public documentation), and officials who bypass this process can be held personally liable.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case