Supreme Court says bulldozer demolition contempt pleas should be decided by high courts

New Delhi: The Supreme Court refused to entertain contempt petitions alleging that demolitions were carried out in violation of its landmark November 2024 judgement laying down safeguards against "bulldozer justice".

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Thursday observed that since each case has a different factual matrix, it should be decided by the high court concerned. Speaking for the bench, CJI Kant said that the Supreme Court cannot adjudicate every claim based on facts. Hence, the bench transferred all petitions seeking contempt proceedings to the respective high courts, leaving all issues open. The SC had earlier issued notices to the authorities in some of the contempt petitions.

Also Read: Lok Sabha admits resolution opposing ordinance to hike number of Supreme Court judges


Appearing in one of the contempt petitions alleging illegal razing of certain mosques in Somnath, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that the court should intervene in cases of "egregious violations" which are patently evident from affidavits. Ahmadi submitted that he could demonstrate the egregious violation of the Supreme Court directions if given an opportunity. Another counsel, raising a similar contempt issue arising from Maharashtra, contended that many demolitions followed public declarations by local politicians to take bulldozer action. However, referring to the Supreme Court's November 2024 ruling, CJI Kant said that the judgment itself carved out certain exceptions, stating that the directions do not apply to buildings encroaching public spaces.

He added that when authorities invoke such exceptions as a defence, it becomes a factual dispute that cannot be adjudicated in contempt jurisdiction.

Also Read: SC Bar Association urges Sonam Wangchuk to end fast, offers support for education reforms

Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that the judgment was issued to address the larger trend of demolishing homes of persons accused in crimes as a punitive action.

Justice Bagchi clarified that the judgment was not a blanket protection to illegal constructions. "This judgment came as the court's conscience was shocked. The foundation of presumption of innocence was disregarded... 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... the question is whether a person had authorisation and procedure of law was followed?" Justice Bagchi added.