Supreme Court refuses to issue uniform policy against demolition of long-standing properties, asks States to consider

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a petition seeking a uniform policy across the country for regularisation and demolition of long-standing unauthorised constructions.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana said such issues essentially fall within the policy domain and thus declined the prayer for constitution a court-empowered committee to formulate uniform guidelines on the subject.

The Court noted that circumstances vary from State to State and thus different policy frameworks may be needed to deal with facts of each case.

"It would be difficult and may not be prudent for this Court to lay down a uniform policy framework to be applied across various States," the Court said.

However, the Court said the States and Union Territories may consider the issues raised in the petition filed by Centre for Law and Good Governance for the purpose of formulating or revisiting their existing policies.

"We are hopeful that due consideration shall be given to all such issues by the competent authorities," it said.

The petition filed by Centre for Law and Good Governance said that settlement and regularisation policies have been introduced in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Delhi.

However, it added there are cases of unauthorised colonies suddenly being demolished, with or without notice and without any welfare scheme for the rehabilitation of the affected families.

The plea argued that demolition, being an extreme and irreversible measure, cannot be carried out without a policy which reconciles the enforcement of planning laws with the rights to shelter, livelihood and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner said that different State governments follow inconsistent policies. Demolitions are carried out hurriedly, erratically and unsystematically, the Court was told.

"On the one hand, they assure residents that unauthorised structures will be regularised. They collect municipal and property taxes and permit electricity connections. After 30, 40 or 50 years, they suddenly declare the structures illegal and demolish them without considering whether the occupants have any alternative accommodation... Human-rights jurisprudence must inform this entire area," the counsel said.

CJI Kant said the Court has already issued comprehensive directions against illegal and unauthorised demolitions. However, the counsel said those directions are contradictory. He added that the issue must also be examined from a human perspective.

"In one case, a three-judge Bench held that the right to shelter forms part of the right to live with human dignity.. But in a judgment delivered on July 14, 2026, another Bench held that the long-standing existence of a colony creates no right and that mere passage of time or laxity by authorities does not cure the illegality," the counsel explained.

The Court said that a court-empowered committee cannot substitute the powers vested in a State or municipality to enforce the rule of law. It added that the top court has already issued directions to prevent sudden demolitions.

"This Court’s humanist jurisprudence, beginning with Olga Tellis, recognises that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process. This Court has also directed that even a rank unauthorised occupant must ordinarily be given at least 15 days’ notice before demolition," CJI Kant said.

Justice Bagchi added that these issues must be examined case by case and cannot be addressed through a collective policy framed by the Court.

However, the counsel asked whether the State was not obligated to even provide a bare minimum alternative accommodation.

Justice Bagchi said the prayers in the petition were too widely-worded and may lead the Court to encroach upon the policy domain of the executive.

The Court also said that some illegal constructions are undertaken for profit and that it cannot prevent State from having a particular policy in place.

"There are also situations where large numbers of economically marginalised people occupy tracts of land and require alternative accommodation... This calls for a policy decision. We cannot prevent the State from adopting a particular policy," the judge sad.

The Court ultimately said that it can only ask the government to consider the suggestions made by the petitioner and ordered accordingly.

[Read Live Updates]