SC Leaves Demolition Rehabilitation Policy To States, Rejects Plea For National Framework

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a petition seeking a uniform national rehabilitation policy for people displaced by demolition drives targeting unauthorised constructions. The court said the formulation of such a policy falls within the domain of states and Union territories and that it would not be appropriate for the judiciary to impose a single framework across the country.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed that different states and Union territories may have varying circumstances and administrative requirements. “It would be difficult and not prudent for this court to lay down a uniform policy framework to be applied across various states,” the bench said, emphasising that rehabilitation policies are essentially matters for the respective governments.

The petition was filed by the non-profit organisation Centre for Law and Good Governance, which sought a national framework to address the rehabilitation of people displaced when authorities demolish structures deemed unauthorised. The organisation argued that affected residents should have access to rehabilitation measures, particularly where demolitions result in the loss of shelter and displacement of families.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL Raising Concerns Over Viral Campaign

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Surat Singh argued that the right to shelter forms part of the constitutional protections associated with the right to dignity and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also pointed to what he described as contradictory orders passed by the Supreme Court in matters concerning demolition and rehabilitation, arguing that a consistent framework was required to protect affected people.

The bench, however, said the petitioners could directly approach the concerned states and Union territories with their concerns. The court clarified that the governments concerned would be free to consider the issues raised and formulate new policies or revisit their existing rehabilitation frameworks. The court therefore declined to prescribe a nationwide policy through judicial directions.

The ruling places responsibility for determining rehabilitation measures primarily with state and Union territory authorities. Such policies can cover issues including the treatment of residents affected by demolition actions and the assistance available to people who lose their homes. The court's decision means that these matters will continue to be addressed through the policy frameworks adopted by individual governments rather than through a single national standard imposed by the Supreme Court.

The petition had raised broader questions about the balance between enforcement against unauthorised construction and the protection of people facing displacement. While authorities have powers to act against illegal structures under applicable laws, rehabilitation concerns can arise when demolitions affect families who may lose their homes as a consequence. The petition sought to bring greater consistency to how such situations are handled across jurisdictions.

By refusing to entertain the plea, the Supreme Court did not direct states or Union territories to adopt any particular rehabilitation model. Instead, it left the matter open for the respective governments to consider. The court's order thus maintains the distinction between judicial protection of constitutional rights and the formulation of detailed administrative policies concerning rehabilitation after demolition drives.

Also Read: SC Delays Hearing On UBT Plea Challenging Six MPs' Merger With Shinde Faction