In November 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, affirming that no structure—however unauthorised or temporary—can be demolished without strict compliance with due process and statutory authority.
The Court’s emphatic reaffirmation of Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution comes against a troubling national pattern. From Delhi’s Batla House to the recent ongoing demolition drives in various places of Assam such as Sonapur, Dhubri and Goalpara district’s Hasila Beel village, where most of the residents are Bengali-origin Muslims, bulldozers have flattened homes, schools and mosques - often without notice, rehabilitation or legal scrutiny.
In recent years, bulldozers have become a symbolic extension of state authority—deployed not just to enforce building codes, but as punitive spectacle in response to protests, unrest or alleged criminality. What began in Uttar Pradesh as “bulldozer raj” has now spread to other states, often affecting minority and marginalised communities disproportionately.
In Assam, evictions near wetlands and forest tracts have been executed under broad executive orders. In many cases, residents possess electoral rolls, ration cards or land tax receipts, yet their settlements are labelled “illegal” and razed without judicial adjudication.
Most recently, rights groups have flagged fresh demolitions in Okhla and in various places of Delhi , where the Delhi Development Authority has demolished over 3,000 homes across 23 settlements, displacing at least 15,000 people.
The Supreme Court authoritatively laid down that any demolition, even in cases involving unauthorised construction or criminal allegations, must comply with the following minimum procedures:
Issuance of a detailed show cause notice laying out statutory violations;
Minimum 45 to 60 days for response, including the opportunity for a personal hearing;
A speaking order, with reasoning and reference to applicable provisions of law;
A minimum 8-week compliance period to allow recourse to judicial remedies;
Where the person is in custody, notice must be served via judicial magistrate;
Absolute bar on demolitions undertaken as “punishment” against families of accused persons;
Personal liability of officers and the occupant’s right to compensation, restoration and access to remedies in case of violation.
These directions are binding under Article 141 and are to be treated as a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) applicable across all states and union territories.
Importantly, the Court observed that any demolition carried out proximate to an allegation of criminality - especially where due process is absent - will be presumed to be punitive, mala fide and unlawful.
At its core, the judgment reasserts the sanctity of Article 300A - that no person shall be deprived of their property save by the authority of law. By invoking this right alongside Articles 14 and 21, the Court weaves a jurisprudence of procedural due process into the framework of administrative action. The judgment reflects the growing judicial discomfort with what the Court terms “the symbolism of punitive demolitions,” which undermines the very architecture of constitutional governance.
In citing foundational cases like Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court affirms that procedural fairness is not a matter of executive discretion; it is a constitutional mandate. The use of administrative discretion - especially in matters affecting shelter, dignity and livelihood - must always be bounded by reason, notice and remedy.
The judgment does carve out a limited exception for demolitions on “public land” such as footpaths, roadways or canals, where municipal law expressly authorises removal without notice. However, in a country where land tenure is often undocumented, especially in informal settlements, this exception is prone to abuse.
In the ongoing clearances in Assam, officials have declared vast tracts as “public land” after eviction, often without verifying long-standing occupancy or land claims. This grey area necessitates rigorous judicial oversight, else the exception will swallow the rule.
The 2024 verdict arms lawyers, activists and communities with a clear, enforceable template. It enables the invocation of Article 226 before High Courts to seek interim protection, halt demolitions or initiate contempt against errant officials.
Crucially, the judgment also suggests that ministerial statements promising demolitions, or publicly associating bulldozer action with penal consequences, may attract civil liability or tortious claims. In doing so, it restores accountability to the language of governance.
Yet, implementation remains the key challenge.
Three gaps remain:
Retrospective accountability: The judgment does not provide relief to those already displaced. Thousands of families in Batla House, Dhalpur or Khargone have no formal recourse. The Central and state governments must create rehabilitation and compensation schemes.
Monitoring and compliance: The Court may consider creating a monitoring mechanism - perhaps through designated amicus curiae or district legal services authorities - to ensure implementation on the ground.
Recognition of long-standing informal settlements: The jurisprudence still stops short of protecting communities without formal titles. This is a crucial omission in a country where urban poverty and legal ambiguity often coexist.
The judgment in In Re: Demolitions is a timely and necessary reaffirmation of due process and constitutional restraint. In a climate where bulldozers have become instruments of performative justice, the Court has reminded the executive and the public that legality is not an obstacle to governance, but its foundation.
The rule of law cannot bend to the politics of retribution. And no matter how powerful the bulldozer, it must halt before the Constitution.
Adeel Ahmed is an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court of India and has represented victims of forced evictions and demolitions in various jurisdictions, including Khargone, Delhi and Assam.