NEW DELHI, August 12 :
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked all States and Union Territories (UTs) to consider framing appropriate policies for the regularisation and demolition of long-standing unauthorised constructions, while declining to prescribe a uniform policy framework for the entire country.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana observed that circumstances and ground realities vary significantly from one State to another. The Court said it would therefore be neither feasible nor prudent to impose a single nationwide policy through judicial directions.
The Bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance, seeking directions to the Centre and State governments to formulate a uniform policy, particularly for protecting long-standing unauthorised dwelling units occupied by economically weaker sections.
The Supreme Court observed that the issue largely falls within the policy domain of State governments and local authorities and declined to constitute a court-appointed committee for framing such a policy.
However, the Court said that the concerns raised in the petition could be duly considered by States and UTs while framing new policies or reviewing existing regulatory frameworks relating to unauthorised constructions.
The Bench expressed hope that competent authorities would give due consideration to issues concerning regularisation, demolition and rehabilitation, particularly in cases involving vulnerable sections of society.
The PIL raised concerns over instances where unauthorised colonies and structures were demolished suddenly, allegedly without adequate notice, rehabilitation measures or welfare mechanisms for affected families.
The petitioner argued that demolition is an extreme and irreversible measure and should be carried out only under a framework that balances enforcement of planning and land-use laws with constitutional protections relating to shelter, livelihood and human dignity under Article 21.
The plea also highlighted alleged inconsistencies in the manner in which different States deal with unauthorised constructions. It was argued that in certain cases authorities continued to collect municipal and property taxes and permitted residents to access civic amenities, including electricity, before declaring the structures illegal decades later.
The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that the mere long-standing existence of an unauthorised colony or structure does not automatically create a legal right. The Bench observed that the passage of time or administrative inaction cannot, by itself, cure an illegality.
At the same time, the Court reiterated the importance of due process before demolition. Chief Justice Surya Kant referred to the Court’s earlier jurisprudence concerning protection against arbitrary dispossession and observed that even a rank unauthorised occupant should ordinarily be provided at least 15 days’ notice before demolition.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that such matters may have to be examined on a case-by-case basis, rather than through a blanket policy imposed by the judiciary.
The Bench also pointed out that unauthorised construction cannot necessarily be viewed only through the lens of economically weaker sections, as some structures may have been constructed for commercial or profit-making purposes.
The Court further observed that where large numbers of economically marginalised people are occupying land and require alternative accommodation, the issue requires a government policy decision concerning rehabilitation and resettlement.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations therefore leave the formulation of any broader policy framework to the Centre, States, UTs and local authorities, while emphasising the importance of due process, lawful planning regulations, rehabilitation, shelter and human dignity.
The Court’s observations underline that while unauthorised constructions cannot automatically acquire legality merely with the passage of time, any demolition must also comply with principles of fairness and due process.(KNC)