Balancing Urban Governance and Constitutional Rights: The Judicial Perspective on Demolition Drives

The Supreme Court’s recent stance on the demolition of unauthorized properties marks a critical juncture in the discourse on urban governance and human rights. While the judiciary has acknowledged the state's prerogative to clear illegal encroachments to maintain urban planning and public order, it has simultaneously cautioned against the arbitrary exercise of this power. The core of the judicial concern lies in the potential violation of Article 21, which encompasses the right to shelter and dignity as essential components of the right to life. By refusing to mandate a uniform, pan-India policy for demolitions, the Court has signaled that the complexities of urban development—ranging from historical settlements to socio-economic disparities—cannot be addressed through a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. Instead, the Bench has shifted the focus toward the accountability of the executive. The Court’s inquiry into the existence of structured rehabilitation frameworks highlights a significant gap in current administrative practices. Often, demolition drives are executed without adequate provisions for the displaced, leading to the further marginalization of vulnerable populations who lack the resources to contest such actions.