Demolition of Justice: Addressing the gap between Judicial Rebukes and Enforcement against Illegal Demolitions in India

The Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment condemning the Uttar Pradesh government for unlawfully demolishing six homes—five of which belonged to the members of the minority community - marks a significant development in India’s battle against "bulldozer politics." This case reflects a broader trend as highlighted by Frontline in a 2024 story.  As per the report, between 2022 and 2024, over 150,000 homes were demolished in Uttar Pradesh, leaving about 738,000 individuals homeless, most of whom are Muslims. The court’s decision is not just a legal correction but a necessary judicial response against state-sponsored majoritarianism. However, without structural reforms, such rulings risk remaining symbolic. This pattern is evident from past judicial interventions (for example, Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures), which have not been able to deter authorities from weaponizing urban planning against minorities. The repeated non-compliance by the state exposes a deeper crisis: judicial rebukes alone cannot eliminate institutionalised discrimination unless paired with enforceable safeguards and political accountability. 

Right to Shelter: A Fundamental Human and Constitutional Right Ignored

The actions of the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) constituted a breach of India’s international obligations as well as its constitutional mandates. 

India is a signatory to key instruments that recognize housing as a fundamental human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees everyone the right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care. Additionally, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) also guarantees an adequate standard of living, which includes adequate housing. General Comment No. 4 (1991) clarifies the right to adequate housing as not merely aspirational, but a freestanding right. By disregarding these obligations, the PDA’s actions undermine India’s global commitments.

Alongside international covenants, India’s Constitution itself guarantees the Right to Shelter as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life under Article 21. Additionally, Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, implying no discrimination in housing rights. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, and place of birth. Article 19(1)(e) guarantees the right to reside and settle in any part of the country, empowering individuals to choose their place of residence without fear of arbitrary displacement or unlawful demolition. This provision ensures that citizens can establish their homes and communities securely, free from the threat of unjust actions that could uproot their lives without legal justification. The PDA’s actions stand in direct conflict with these safeguards, exposing a glaring discrepancy between constitutional principles and ground realities.

Judicial Intervention is Necessary, but not Sufficient

The petitioners in Professor Ali Ahmed Fatmi v State of U.P. (2021) argued before the Allahabad High Court that they had been given less than 24 hours' notice prior to demolition, contesting the government’s claim of having served an additional notice 52 days prior (8^th January 2021) as factually incorrect.  This deprived them of their right to be heard and defend themselves, violating the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling mandating a 15-day notice period before any demolition. The same ruling also established mandatory judicial review of the demolition orders and proper documentation of the demolition. Additionally, the petitioners asserted full ownership rights, claiming that they had converted their leasehold status to freehold. They further contended that their buildings had existed for over 50 years, predating local urban planning laws. This gave them a historical claim over the Nazul plot. Despite this, the Allahabad High Court dismissed their petitions, accepting the State’s arguments on lease expiration, unauthorised construction, and the area’s redesignation for public use. 

Following this judgment, a special leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging the judgment of the High Court. In a striking reversal, the respondents claimed a “misunderstanding” regarding the ownership of land. In its judgment dated 1 April 2025, the apex court came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government for violating the right to shelter and due process of law as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court called the actions of the PDA inhuman and unconstitutional, stating that it “shocks their conscience”, while awarding a Rupees 10 Lakh compensation to each homeowner. 

Suggestions and Way Forward

This 2025 judgment transcends mere judicial reprimand; it is an urgent call to confront state-sponsored discrimination. It has revealed a systematic and symbolic use of demolitions as tools of political appeasement and voter manipulation. This institutionalised discrimination demands immediate and multi-pronged structural reforms. 

To address this, first and foremost, legal safeguards, as laid down by the Supreme Court, must be codified into locally binding legislation, leaving no room at all for administrative discretion or evasion. Mandatory notice periods, judicial review, documentation, and other requirements must not be merely laid down, but also strictly enforced. Furthermore, the establishment of an independent Housing Rights Commission is imperative. Such a statutory body would not only enforce a uniform compensation framework but also serve as a watchdog, checking all demolition activities to ensure strict adherence to the guidelines. 

Transparency in land records is another critical reform. The implementation of digitized, publicly accessible land title systems would prevent the state from making retrospective claims of "unauthorized occupation"—a common pretext for unlawful demolitions. 

Political Accountability must also be addressed. Although limited in temporal application, the Election Commission must come up with an amended  Model Code of Conduct, penalising political parties for using demolition as a tool to secure votes from the majority. Simultaneously, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 must be amended to include provisions against unlawful demolitions. 

Lastly, civil society plays the most important role. Strategic public interest litigation, systematic documentation of demolitions, and grassroots legal aid clinics are essential tools for empowering affected communities. Continuous civic engagement is necessary to convert judicial victories into on-the-ground accountability. 

In the end, it is important to acknowledge that while the award of compensation is a crucial step towards justice, mere financial compensation cannot fully redress the trauma and loss caused by the demolition of an individual’s home, which is a depository of his dignity and security. This raises an important question: What has happened to those responsible for executing these illegal demolitions? Have the officials and authorities involved faced any consequences for their actions, or has impunity continued to prevail? Without accountability for such violations, there is a risk that these illegal practices will continue, undermining the rule of law and constitutional rights. True justice requires not only compensation for victims but also enforceable consequences for perpetrators.