NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday declined to issue a uniform nationwide policy governing the regularization and demolition of long-standing unauthorized constructions, ruling that municipal planning and housing regulations strictly fall within the policy domain of individual state executive bodies.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance. The petition had sought mandatory guidelines and the constitution of a court-empowered committee to harmonize regularization schemes and protect settled residents from sudden evictions.
While acknowledging the grave human rights concerns associated with urban displacement, the apex court observed that local economic realities, geography, and urban density vary too widely across regions to allow for a single, rigid judicial template.
"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 bench noted in its order.
Executive Domain vs. Constitutional Protections
The public interest petition highlighted stark policy disparities across different regional jurisdictions. The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi maintain defined legal frameworks for urban regularizations. Conversely, in many other parts of the country, long-standing settlements face sudden, erratic demolition drives without adequate prior notice or transitional welfare schemes.
The petition argued that municipal authorities routinely facilitate long-term settlement by collecting property and municipal taxes, providing infrastructure, and issuing water and electricity connections over several decades. Executing sudden demolition drives after decades of implied approval directly conflicts with the right to shelter, livelihood, and human dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Responding to the petitioner’s reliance on constitutional rights, Chief Justice Surya Kant highlighted that the Supreme Court’s established jurisprudence—dating back to the landmark Olga Tellis judgment—already mandates strict statutory compliance. Under existing guidelines:
Occupants in settled possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed without due legal process.
Municipal authorities are generally obligated to serve at least 15 days’ advance notice prior to taking punitive executive action.
However, the court drew a sharp distinction between vulnerable populations needing state shelter assistance and commercial entities exploiting regulatory loopholes. Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that broad-brush judicial mandates could inadvertently protect commercial encroachments built purely for private profit.
Directive to States and Union Territories
Refusing to usurp executive function, the Supreme Court clarified that a court-appointed panel cannot substitute the regulatory mandate granted to elected state legislatures and civic bodies.
Instead, the bench permitted the petitioner organization to forward its comprehensive representation to the Union Government, state governments, and Union Territory administrations. The Supreme Court expressed hope that competent executive authorities will evaluate the humanitarian suggestions when framing or revising their respective municipal, regularisation, and urban housing policies.
By steering clear of judicial overreach while reaffirming baseline procedural protections under Article 21, the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that urban planning, rehabilitation schemes, and anti-encroachment actions remain governed on a case-by-case basis under individual state legislation.
Discription: NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India has refused to issue a uniform nationwide policy on the regularization and demolition of long-standing unauthorized constructions, ruling that urban planning falls within the executive domain of individual state governments.
Dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that conditions vary too significantly across states to implement a rigid judicial template.
While declining to set up a court-empowered committee, the apex court urged state governments and Union Territories to consider humanitarian concerns and rehabilitation schemes when updating local housing policies. The bench reiterated that existing jurisprudence protects residents in settled possession, requiring authorities to provide due process and at least 15 days' notice before carrying out demolitions.