SUPREME COURT DIRECTS HIGH COURTS TO DECIDE 'BULLDOZER JUSTICE' CONTEMPT PETITIONS WITHIN FOUR MONTHS:

The Supreme Court has transferred a batch of contempt petitions relating to alleged illegal structural demolitions, commonly referred to as cases of "bulldozer justice," to the respective jurisdictional High Courts for adjudication. The Court observed that the matters involved several disputed questions of fact, making the High Courts the appropriate forums to conduct a detailed inquiry. While reaffirming its commitment to enforcing the constitutional safeguards and procedural guidelines governing demolitions, the Court held that factual issues such as whether the demolished structures were situated on public or private land, whether they constituted unauthorized constructions, and whether the authorities complied with the principles of natural justice required evidence-based determination at the local level. The Bench further directed the High Courts to decide the transferred proceedings expeditiously, preferably within four months, while continuing the interim protection and status quo orders previously granted by the Supreme Court.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan. After considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that the controversy involved multiple factual disputes that could not be satisfactorily resolved in contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court. It therefore directed that the records of the contempt petitions be transmitted to the concerned High Courts, which were requested to summon the necessary records and, if required, collect evidence through the jurisdictional District Courts. The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defence raised by the respondent authorities, leaving all factual and legal issues open for determination by the High Courts.

Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for one of the petitioners, argued that the demolition carried out by the authorities was a blatant violation of the Supreme Court's earlier directions governing demolitions and due process. He contended that the property in question was privately owned and protected by registered sale deeds, rather than constituting an encroachment on public land. According to the petitioner, the demolition was initiated following political controversy surrounding the existence of a mosque in the State and was executed even before the final demolition order had been served, despite the High Court having already granted interim protection in the matter. Senior Advocate C.U. Singh supported these submissions by asserting that the authorities had disregarded binding judicial directions, thereby undermining the rule of law. Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar also submitted that the aggrieved parties had initially approached the High Court but were denied effective relief on the ground that the concerned District Collector had no knowledge of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment.

Appearing for the respondent authorities, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati denied the allegations and maintained that the demolitions were undertaken strictly in accordance with the applicable municipal laws after due statutory notice had been issued. It was contended that the structures constituted unauthorized constructions or encroachments on public land and that the prescribed legal procedure had been followed before any demolition was carried out. During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Supreme Court's earlier judgment was intended to reinforce existing statutory safeguards by ensuring notice, personal hearing, and appellate remedies before demolition, while also recognising exceptions relating to public encroachments. The Court emphasized that these binding principles must be faithfully implemented by all authorities. At the same time, it reiterated that their application in individual cases necessarily depended upon factual findings, which were best undertaken by the High Courts and subordinate courts. Accordingly, while preserving the interim protection already granted, the Supreme Court transferred the contempt proceedings to the jurisdictional High Courts with a request that they be disposed of within four months.