The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday disposed of a Public Curiosity Litigation alleging disparity in judicial and administrative approaches to the demolition of unauthorized constructions.
Observing that it was a coverage matter, the Court docket declined interference, leaving it open to the petitioner to strategy the Union, States and Union Territories to formulate or revisit insurance policies.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was listening to a PIL filed by Centre for Regulation and Good Governance impleading the Union and all States as respondents. The petitioner highlighted instances the place authorities had allegedly permitted unauthorized constructions to stay for many years, supplied civic facilities and picked up municipal taxes, solely to provoke demolition proceedings years later.
The petitioner contended that demolition, being an excessive measure, cannot be carried out with out a coverage that reconciles the enforcement of planning legal guidelines with rights to shelter, livelihood and dignity.
Showing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the correct to shelter has been recognised as a facet of the correct to stay with dignity, however that there have been additionally judgments holding that the mere passage of time wouldn’t condone even compoundable unauthorized constructions.
The counsel submitted that authorities typically present water and electrical energy connections and acquire municipal taxes from residents earlier than, many years later, taking motion in opposition to the very constructions that they had allowed to exist. The petitioner sought the structure of a court-empowered committee to look at the difficulty and evolve an applicable framework.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, identified that the Supreme Court docket had already issued directions governing demolition proceedings.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi noticed, “You can’t substitute powers vested in a state to implement rule of regulation. These are coverage determination calls. We will step in if state’s coverage is unfair or not accommodating due course of.”
In its order, the Bench famous the petitioner’s competition that governments throughout the nation had, for many years, allowed unauthorized constructions to stay unchallenged and, in some instances, facilitated their continued existence by offering water and electrical energy connections and amassing municipal taxes.
The order famous that such conditions come up in States and Union Territories together with Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Delhi, whereas somewhere else unauthorized colonies constructed many years in the past are allegedly ordered to be demolished, typically with out enough discover or any welfare scheme for affected households..
The Bench stated it appreciated the considerations raised concerning households whose proper to shelter may very well be adversely affected by demolition.
Nevertheless, the Court docket held that such questions primarily fall inside the coverage area.
“Truth scenario might fluctuate from state to state and should due to this fact warrant variation in coverage,” the Court docket noticed, declining to prescribe a uniform coverage relevant throughout the nation.
The Court docket consequently disposed of the PIL, whereas granting the petitioner liberty to ahead a replica of the petition to the Union Authorities, States and Union Territories.
The Bench expressed hope that the competent authorities would give due consideration to the considerations raised, notably the necessity to steadiness enforcement of planning and constructing legal guidelines with the influence of demolition on affected households.
Case : Centre for Regulation and Good Governance v. Union of India and others | WP(c) 984/2026
