The Supreme Court of India on Thursday declined to directly hear a series of contempt petitions alleging that state authorities are continuing to use bulldozers to demolish homes and structures in violation of the court's November 2024 guidelines. A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, determined that these cases involve complex, disputed questions of fact that are better suited for adjudication by the respective High Courts. The court emphasized that it cannot act as a primary fact-finding body for every individual demolition claim across the country.
In its November 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court had established strict safeguards against the use of bulldozers as a punitive measure, declaring that demolishing homes merely because residents are accused of a crime is unconstitutional. The court clarified on Thursday that its previous judgment does not impose a blanket ban on all demolitions. It acknowledged that authorities must retain the power to remove genuine, illegal encroachments on public land, provided they follow established municipal procedures and due process.
The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, noted that authorities often justify demolitions by citing these exceptions for illegal construction. Because determining whether a specific property was truly an illegal encroachment or a target of selective reprisal requires examining local records and evidence, the Supreme Court directed petitioners to approach their local High Courts. These courts are now tasked with reviewing the facts of each case to ensure compliance with the law.
This decision marks a shift in how the judiciary is managing the ongoing controversy surrounding 'bulldozer justice.' While the Supreme Court maintains its stance against arbitrary, retaliatory demolitions, it is delegating the enforcement of its guidelines to lower courts to handle the factual nuances of each dispute. Any interim protections previously granted by the Supreme Court in these specific cases will remain in effect while the High Courts conduct their reviews.