Demolition and rehabilitation are "twin responsibilities" of the State: Supreme Court

On Wednesday, 12 August 2026, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard a petition by the NGO Centre for Law and Good Governance seeking a uniform national policy on the demolition of unauthorised constructions and the simultaneous rehabilitation of affected families.

The court did not issue a uniform policy itself. Instead it disposed of the petition with a direction to the Union and State governments to consider the issues raised for the formulation or revision of their demolition policies.

The twin responsibilities

Chief Justice Kant's core observation:

"If you [the state] 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?'"

Demolition, the court recorded, is an extreme and irreversible measure that cannot be carried out without a policy reconciling the right to shelter, livelihood and dignity under Article 21.

The "implied regularisation" argument

The petitioner's counsel made a striking point: states often allow unauthorised constructions to survive for decades —

• charging municipal taxes for 30 to 40 years,
• providing electricity and water connections,
• permitting conversion of properties to freehold —

then suddenly declaring them illegal and demolishing them "without even prior notice or providing alternative accommodation". That conduct, the counsel argued, can amount to an "implied regularisation" of long-standing structures.

The court noted the submissions, including the point that the law surrounding demolition "lacks even an iota of human rights jurisprudence".

Judicial restraint on policy

Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed that a person cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, but cautioned against the judiciary stepping into policy-making:

"We 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."

Why this matters

For aspirants, the case crystallises three running constitutional themes:

1. Article 21 now firmly embraces shelter, livelihood and dignity — demolition is a rights question, not just a municipal law question.
2. State inaction + benefit-granting can be read as implied acceptance, a recurring principle in land and revenue matters.
3. The boundary of judicial review vs. policy-making — courts defer to policy but strike down arbitrary or disproportionate exercise of power.