The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to lay down a uniform policy framework governing demolition of unauthorised colonies and rehabilitation of affected residents, holding that such issues primarily fall within the policy domain of the respective State governments. The matter was heard by Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.

The PIL raised concerns over the demolition of longstanding unauthorised colonies and structures, particularly where State authorities had allegedly allowed such constructions to remain for decades, collected municipal and property taxes and provided civic amenities including electricity and water connections, before subsequently treating the structures as illegal and ordering their demolition. The petitioner argued that demolition must be considered in the context of the right to shelter, livelihood and dignity under Article 21.

The petitioner submitted that State governments were following inconsistent approaches, pointing out that policies in Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana contemplated regularisation of unauthorised structures, while in other cases longstanding colonies were subjected to demolition without adequate rehabilitation measures.

The petitioner also relied upon the Court’s jurisprudence recognising the right to shelter as part of human dignity and contended that longstanding possession should be considered while undertaking demolition. At the same time, the petitioner clarified that it was not seeking protection for unauthorised construction as such, but wanted a framework ensuring that demolitions were carried out in a humane and systematic manner.

Seeking judicial intervention, the petitioner proposed the constitution of a court-empowered committee to examine the issue and formulate guidelines for demolitions across the country. The Court, however, expressed reservations about such a mechanism, observing that the Court could not substitute itself for the authorities constitutionally entrusted with enforcing planning laws, as it would be completely contrary to the Constitution.

The petitioner nevertheless argued that merely prescribing procedural safeguards was insufficient if the affected family had nowhere to go after demolition. Referring to the concept of positive liberty, the petitioner submitted that meaningful protection required consideration of alternative accommodation in appropriate cases. The petitioner submitted:

The Court acknowledged that the circumstances could vary considerably. It noted that there could be cases involving illegal constructions undertaken for profit, as well as cases involving economically marginalised persons occupying land who may require alternative accommodation. Such distinctions, according to the Court, reinforced the need for policy decisions rather than a single judicially prescribed framework. The Bench observed:

The Court also suggested that the petitioner should first approach the concerned States and the Union Government for formulation of appropriate policies. The Bench indicated that it could assist to the extent of directing the authorities to consider the concerns raised in the PIL.

On rehabilitation specifically, the Court noted that demolition cannot be viewed in isolation from the question of where affected families would go. It observed that if a State intends to undertake demolition, it should have a corresponding rehabilitation policy.

Ultimately, however, the Court declined to formulate a uniform nationwide policy, holding that rehabilitation and demolition-related issues are substantially dependent upon local circumstances and therefore fall within the policy domain of the States. The Court said:

The Court accordingly disposed of the PIL with a direction to forward a copy of the petition to the Union Government, States and Union Territories, enabling the competent authorities to consider the issues raised while formulating or revisiting their existing policies.