SC rejects plea for national policy for demolition rehab, leaves it to states

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, ruled that while the state has the authority to demolish unauthorized structures, it must simultaneously bear the responsibility of rehabilitating affected families. This directive came in response to a petition filed by the Centre for Law and Good Governance, an NGO advocating for the rights of marginalized communities. The court emphasized that the twin responsibilities, demolition and rehabilitation, are integral to maintaining the principles of a welfare-based democratic system. The petition highlighted the plight of thousands of families who have lived in unauthorized settlements for years, paying municipal taxes, receiving essential services like electricity and water, and even converting their properties into freehold. Despite these contributions, many were suddenly evicted when their homes were labeled illegal and demolished without adequate notice or alternative housing. The court acknowledged that such actions often violate the constitutional guarantee of the right to life and dignity under Article 21. In its ruling, the court noted that the legal framework governing the demolition of unauthorized structures lacks a clear integration of human rights considerations. The petitioners argued that states frequently allow unauthorized constructions to remain untouched for decades, effectively granting them de facto legality through prolonged usage and service provision. However, when these structures are eventually declared illegal, families are left homeless without prior warning or support systems. Chief Justice Surya Kant presiding over the three-judge bench stressed that the state's power to demolish must be accompanied by a robust rehabilitation strategy. He questioned whether the government had developed policies to address the displacement caused by such actions, emphasizing that the two measures should not be treated as separate entities. “If you want to demolish, you must also have a plan for rehabilitation,” he remarked during the proceedings. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, another member of the bench, expressed reservations about the court intervening in policy-making. While acknowledging the need for due process, he cautioned against substituting the state’s role in crafting policies with judicial oversight. “Once the state establishes its policy, we can assess its validity through judicial review if necessary,” he stated, underscoring the importance of allowing state authorities to make decisions within their jurisdiction. The court directed both the central and state governments to examine the issues raised in the petition and consider revising or formulating new policies regarding the demolition and rehabilitation of unauthorized structures. The ruling did not mandate a uniform national policy but encouraged individual states to develop tailored approaches based on local conditions. Advocate Surat Singh, representing the petitioner, argued that the current legal landscape allows for inconsistent treatment of similar cases across different regions. He cited examples where states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Delhi have established regularization policies, while others lack such mechanisms entirely. This disparity, he claimed, leads to arbitrary enforcement of demolition orders without proper safeguards for affected individuals. The court acknowledged the complexity of balancing the need to control unauthorized construction with the protection of residents' rights. It referenced landmark judgments such as the Olga Tellis case, which affirmed that individuals occupying property must be given due process before being dispossessed. Additionally, the court recalled its earlier rulings on bulldozer demolitions, which mandated advance notice to occupants unless the structure occupied public land. Despite the court’s reluctance to assume a policymaking role, it reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that all actions taken by the state comply with constitutional norms and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The ruling thus represents a nuanced approach, recognizing the state’s authority while reinforcing the necessity of safeguarding the rights of vulnerable populations.