SC On Bulldozer Action: No Blanket Ban, But No Room For Selective Demolitions

Last Updated:July 17, 2026, 07:40 IST

The Supreme Court said bulldozer action against illegal encroachments is permissible but warned that demolitions cannot be used to selectively target individuals.

The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that its earlier judgment does not prohibit all bulldozer action, but made it clear that demolitions cannot be used as a tool to selectively target individuals. Hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging arbitrary demolitions, the court observed that the legality of each action must be examined on its own facts and that High Courts are the appropriate forums to undertake that exercise.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana declined to entertain the contempt petitions, holding that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact that required detailed scrutiny.

‘Bulldozers Needed Against Illegal Encroachments, Not Individuals’

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi underlined that bulldozer action may be justified in cases of illegal encroachments, but warned against using it in a discriminatory manner.

“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. It runs against basic tenets…. The question is whether a person had authorisation and procedure of law was followed?" he observed.

The bench reiterated that the central issue in every demolition case is whether the structure was legally authorised and whether authorities complied with the prescribed legal procedure before taking action.

High Courts Best Suited to Examine Individual Cases

The petitions before the Supreme Court alleged that authorities had violated the safeguards laid down in its landmark November 2024 judgment on demolitions. However, the bench said those allegations required factual determination, making the High Courts the appropriate forums to examine whether due process had been followed.

The court observed that its November 2024 ruling should be read together with the exceptions mentioned in the judgment and not as a standalone statutory provision. It also said contempt proceedings were not the proper mechanism for resolving factual disputes arising in individual demolition cases.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court transferred all pending petitions to the respective High Courts, leaving every legal and factual issue open for fresh consideration. It further clarified that notices issued earlier by the apex court in some contempt matters would not influence the High Courts while deciding those cases independently.

Lawyers Cite Alleged Targeted Demolitions

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi argued that the Supreme Court should directly intervene in cases involving what he described as “egregious violations" of its earlier directions.

Referring to a petition concerning the demolition of certain mosques in Somnath, Ahmadi submitted that the alleged breach was evident from the affidavits already on record and could be demonstrated within minutes.

He contended that the demolitions were targeted, claiming they followed a politician’s public objection to the presence of a large mosque in the state and asserting that the structure did not stand on public land.

Appearing in a matter from Maharashtra, Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh argued that demolitions were frequently preceded by public statements from political leaders promising “bulldozer justice". He maintained that the state’s own affidavit showed that the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court had not been followed. According to him, the speed with which demolitions were carried out, along with celebratory public remarks made afterwards, indicated that several actions were punitive in nature.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde referred to another case involving the demolition of his client’s fruit juice stall, alleging that a television anchor was present on the bulldozer while the demolition was broadcast live.

Court Says Facts Must Be Verified Case by Case

The bench, however, maintained that such allegations required examination of evidence and records before any conclusion could be drawn.

Chief Justice Surya Kant pointed out that the November 2024 judgment specifically excluded certain categories, including encroachments on public land and roads. Once authorities claimed that a structure fell within those exceptions, he said, the dispute became one of fact that could not be decided through contempt proceedings alone.

The Chief Justice observed that every matter would require scrutiny of official records, including whether notices had been issued, who issued them and when they were served. He questioned why the Supreme Court should undertake such fact-finding when High Courts have the authority to summon records and examine evidence.

Justice V Mohana echoed the same view, observing that factual controversies could not be conclusively determined in contempt jurisdiction and asking whether every such dispute from across the country should come directly before the apex court.

Madhya Pradesh Case Sent Back for Fresh Hearing

The bench also considered a petition from Madhya Pradesh after Senior Advocate S Muralidhar informed the court that the High Court had declined to entertain the matter because the district collector was allegedly unaware of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment.

The apex court set aside that order and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter afresh.

Interim Protection to Continue

In its final directions, the Supreme Court ordered that records relating to all pending contempt petitions be transferred to the respective High Courts. It said the High Courts would be free to summon official records or seek evidence through district courts wherever necessary.

The bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations. It also directed that the interim protection granted earlier would remain in force until the concerned High Courts examined the cases, while allowing parties to seek modification of those interim orders before the respective High Courts.

News india SC On Bulldozer Action: No Blanket Ban, But No Room For Selective Demolitions

Read More