Supreme Court Routes 'Bulldozer Justice' Contempt Cases to High Courts
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (July 16, 2026) passed a standard order transferring contempt petitions alleging continued instances of 'bulldozer justice' to the respective state High Courts. The court reasoned that it would be unwieldy to hear all such petitions directly and that many required factual inquiries.
This decision comes less than two years after the Supreme Court's November 2024 judgment, which declared illegal demolitions of private properties—especially those belonging to people accused in criminal cases—as an 'arbitrary use of power'. That judgment termed the sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building without following natural justice or due process as a 'lawless state of affairs' where 'might was right'. It mandated due process before any demolition and warned that erring officials would face contempt proceedings and be personally liable to restore demolished properties.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that High Courts are better suited to handle petitions seeking contempt action against officials for violating the November 2024 order. Chief Justice Kant noted that each contempt petition involves disputed facts requiring separate and in-depth investigation, and even suggested forming dedicated benches in High Courts to hear these cases.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out that the 2024 judgment did not specify that only the Supreme Court could hear contempt petitions. Justice S.V. Mohana added that the petitions have come from across the country. Addressing the petitioners, Justice Mohana said, 'Whether there is contempt or not would itself be a disputed question... In the High Courts, you may get a better opportunity to make your case on facts.' He questioned whether every alleged violation nationwide should directly be brought to the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Huzeifa Ahmadi, representing a petitioner in a case involving partial demolition of the Madni Masjid in Hata, Uttar Pradesh, argued that some violations were egregious. He said, 'Ultimately, it is the rule of law which stands at a much higher footing.' Senior advocate C.U. Singh, appearing in a case from Maharashtra, submitted that demolitions have continued 'as if cocking a snook at the court' despite the 2024 judgment. Justice Bagchi agreed that bulldozers should not be used for targeted reprisal but only when rule of law is thwarted by corruption between authorities and illegal encroachers.
The court issued a standard order transferring the contempt petitions to the relevant High Courts, which may obtain records and evidence from district courts. Any interim protections previously granted by the Supreme Court in these cases will continue. The Chief Justice directed that the order not be published for two days to allow petitioners to file affidavits suggesting factual additions.
