SC declines bulldozer demolition contempt pleas

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to consider a batch of contempt petitions alleging that demolitions were carried out in violation of its 2024 judgment and asked aggrieved parties to approach the concerned high courts.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that there are multiple questions that require consideration on basis of facts.

The top court said it would transfer the records of these proceedings to the concerned high courts, also asking them to call for relevant records and, if necessary, obtain evidence through district courts to determine all factual issues.

Clarifying that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the apex court directed that the interim protection granted by it would continue during the pendency of the proceedings before the high courts.” However, the parties would be free to seek modification of the interim orders before the high courts, which would decide such applications independently,” the bench said while requesting the high courts to decide the matter preferably within four months.

During the hearing, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing in a case pertaining to razing of mosques in Somnath, submitted that there was no encroachment of public land in this instance.

He alleged “egregious violations” of the apex court’s orders, saying authorities acted in teeth of the court's directions.

Responding to the submission, the CJI remarked,” Primary grievance appears to be that procedure is not being followed. You (authorities) will say it is followed and other side will say no. Why not we order status quo and let high court decide the same.”

Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing in a contempt case related to Maharashtra, claimed many demolitions take place after local politicians call for “bulldozer action”.

He submitted that there are many instances when such demolitions are clearly undertaken as “punitive action”.

Singh contended that if the court finds that there was no contempt, the plea can be dismissed. “If the Supreme Court does not stand up for its own judgment, then I am sorry to say...”

Justice Bagchi then remarked, “Judgment cannot be read as a statute. Directions are hedged with a caveat. These are in the form of reiteration of what statutory rights are there.”

He said, “This judgment came as conscience of court was shocked. There was foundation of presumption of innocence... Yes, bulldozers need to be used when rule of law is throttled by comfortable corruption between authorities and illegal encroachers.

“But in the guise of implementing law, there should not be characterising (of) individuals. It runs against basic tenets. Question is whether a person had authorisation and procedure of law was followed?”

The top court, after hearing the parties, asked them to approach the concerned high courts.

Slamming “bulldozer justice”, the Supreme Court on November 13, 2024, laid down pan-India guidelines on demolition of properties and said the executive cannot become a judge, declare an accused guilty and demolish his house.

Passing a slew of directions, the bench had said, “No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later.”

The apex court had said it would be “totally unconstitutional” if houses of people were demolished merely because they are accused or even convicts.

Pronouncing the judgement, the apex court had said even after a demolition order has been passed, affected parties need to be given time to challenge the order before an appropriate forum.

Even in cases where people do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time should be given to them to vacate and sort their affairs.