New Delhi: A three-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Thursday (July 16) declined to hear a batch of pleas alleging contempt of the top court's November 2024 ruling against "bulldozer justice," directing the petitioners to approach their respective high courts instead.

Senior advocates Sanjay Hegde, C.U. Singh and Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, urged the court to rule on the cases directly rather than defer to high courts, citing specific instances of the 2024 judgment being flouted, including a fruit stall demolition and a mosque razed despite a status-quo order.

The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said the pleas raised disputed questions that needed case-by-case adjudication. Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati agreed with this view, observing that the petitions came from across the country. Justice Bagchi further noted that the 2024 ruling cannot be read "as a statute" and should be divorced from the facts of the case.

Referring to contentious practice utilised by state governments, especially those governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), where authorities demolish homes and premises of individuals under the garb of anti-encroachment drives, Justice Bagchi remarked that "bulldozers will have to roll" when a "comfortable corruption" between municipal officials and illegal encroachers undermines the rule of law, reported Indian Express. Simultaneously, he cautioned that the same enforcement must not become a tool for targeting individuals or for overriding the presumption of innocence.

What did the petitioners' legal counsel argue?

Ahmadi argued that the court should still step in wherever violations were "egregious" and "patently evident from affidavits," offering to demonstrate the same within 15 minutes if given the chance, according to LiveLaw. His petition concerned the alleged illegal razing of mosques in Somnath. The demolition had reportedly followed a local politician's letter asking "how can we have Asia's largest mosque in this particular state." Ahmadi insisted the structure in question did not stand on public land.

As per the LiveLaw report, Singh, arguing a contempt case from Maharashtra, told the bench that several such demolitions were preceded by public declarations from local politicians announcing "bulldozer action" in advance. This sequence, he said, pointed to punitive intent rather than routine enforcement. Singh further claimed that the state's own affidavit in his client's matter showed that the process mandated by the Supreme Court had not been adhered to and that the hastiness of the demolition, combined with celebratory political statements afterwards, made the punitive character of the action self-evident.

Hegde described how his client's fruit juice stall had been destroyed by a bulldozer while a television anchor sat nearby live-telecasting the demolition. The nature of the demolition, he argued, captured how such actions had become spectacle rather than law enforcement.

The bench's response

Pushing back on the request for direct intervention, the CJI highlighted that the 2024 judgment itself carved out exceptions under paragraph 94 for structures encroaching upon public land. He added that whenever authorities invoked these exceptions as defence, the matter became a factual dispute unsuited to the court's contempt jurisdiction.

Justice Mohana, echoing the CJI's arguments, questioned whether disputes once contested by the state could realistically be settled under contempt proceedings at all. "All over India, whatever happens, can everybody come directly to the Supreme Court?" she asked, as quoted by LiveLaw.

Not every petitioner was turned away

Senior advocate S. Muralidhar informed the bench that his client had already reached out to the Madhya Pradesh high court, which had refused to entertain the plea on the ground that the local collector had no notice of the Supreme Court's November 2024 judgment. This left the client with no option but to directly seek the apex court. Upon hearing Muralidhar's argument, the court set aside the high court's order and remanded the case for fresh determination.

Court's ruling in other petitions

In its written order, disposing off the remaining petitions, the court posed a central question: whether the petitioners' properties had been demolished in breach of the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in 2024.

Although petitioners alleged that the demolitions had been carried contrary to law and violated natural justice, the state authorities maintained that due process had been followed. As per the Live Law report, considering the "multiple questions of fact," the bench ruled that disputes could not appropriately be resolved in contempt proceedings before the Supreme Court and must be transferred to the concerned high courts.

It clarified that the ruling did not reflect on the merits of any allegations and directed that interim protection granted by the Supreme Court would continue under the matters were resolved under the respective high courts.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.