‘Bulldozer justice’: Supreme Court declines to entertain contempt petitions, asks aggrieved parties to approach high courts

The apex court directed that the interim protection granted by it would continue during the pendency of proceedings before the high courts. FILE PIC

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a batch of contempt petitions alleging that demolitions were carried out in violation of its 2024 judgment and directed the aggrieved parties to approach the concerned high courts, news agency PTI reported.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that several issues required examination based on facts and circumstances of individual cases.

The top court said it would transfer the records of the proceedings to the high courts concerned and asked them to call for relevant records and, if required, obtain evidence through district courts to decide all factual issues.

Clarifying that it had 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 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 matters preferably within four months.

During the hearing, senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing in a matter related to the demolition of mosques in Somnath, submitted that there was no encroachment on public land in the case.

Senior lawyers allege demolition orders violated SC directions

He alleged "egregious violations" of the apex court's directions, claiming that authorities acted in disregard of the court's orders.

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

Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing in a contempt matter related to Maharashtra, claimed that several demolitions take place after local politicians call for "bulldozer action".

He submitted that there were instances where demolitions were allegedly carried out as "punitive action".

Singh argued that if the court found no contempt had taken place, the plea could be dismissed.

"If Supreme Court does not stand up for its own judgment, then I am sorry to say..." he said.

SC reiterates demolition safeguards, says due process must be followed

Justice Bagchi 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."

"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," added Justice Bagchi.

"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?" Justice Bagchi said.

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

The Supreme Court, while ruling against "bulldozer justice" on November 13, 2024, had laid down pan-India guidelines on the demolition of properties and said the executive cannot act as a judge, declare an accused guilty, and demolish his property.

Passing a series 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."

SC says demolishing houses of accused persons or convicts without due process is ‘totally unconstitutional'

The apex court had observed that it would be "totally unconstitutional" to demolish houses merely because their occupants were accused persons or even convicts.

While pronouncing the judgment, the court had said that even after a demolition order was passed, affected parties must be given time to challenge the order before an appropriate forum.

It had also said that even in cases where people do not wish to challenge a demolition order, sufficient time should be given to vacate the premises and make necessary arrangements.

(With PTI inputs)