SC to States: Demolition and rehabilitation are twin responsibilities
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 12, 2026) told the Union and State governments to consider framing a uniform policy for demolition of unauthorised constructions, with simultaneous rehabilitation of affected families. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant was hearing a public interest petition filed by the NGO Centre for Law and Good Governance.
The Bench observed that demolition and rehabilitation were "twin responsibilities" of the government in a welfare democracy. "If you want to demolish, you have to provide rehabilitation for people affected by your action. It is a twin responsibility. If you want to demolish an unauthorised construction, the question for the government is ‘do you also have a policy for their rehabilitation?’" Chief Justice Kant said.
The court acknowledged that the state’s power to demolish long-standing structures after branding them illegal must be balanced with the right to dignity, shelter and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that lakhs of families have paid municipal taxes for decades, received electricity and water connections, and even converted their properties to freehold, only to be evicted suddenly when their homes are declared unauthorised.
The NGO counsel submitted that states often allow such constructions to survive undisturbed for 30 to 40 years. Charging municipal taxes and providing civic amenities during this period could amount to an "implied regularisation" of these structures, the counsel argued. "Then, suddenly, these structures are declared illegal. They are demolished without even prior notice or providing alternative accommodation to the families. The state’s power to demolish cannot be exercised in a hurried, erratic and unsystematic manner," the counsel said.
The petition urged the court to constitute an expert committee to formulate a uniform policy that reconciles demolition with rehabilitation. The counsel stressed that women and children are often thrown onto the streets, and that shelter is part of human dignity. The Bench noted the submission that demolition, being an extreme and irreversible measure, cannot be carried out without a policy that reconciles the right to shelter, livelihood and dignity.
However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was on the Bench with Justice V. Mohana, cautioned against the judiciary moving into policy-making. He said it is settled that a person cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, but the court cannot substitute the powers invested in a state to enforce rule of law with a court-empowered committee. "Once the state draws its policy, we can step in through judicial review if the policy is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or not accommodating due process," Justice Bagchi observed.
The Bench disposed of the petition with a direction to the Union and State governments to consider the issues raised for the formulation or revision of demolition policies. The order did not mandate the constitution of any committee or set a timeline, leaving the policy decision to the executive. The court emphasised that the laws surrounding demolition of unauthorised structures should incorporate human rights jurisprudence, and that rehabilitation must go hand in hand with any demolition drive.
