Supreme Court of India declined to examine Gurugram demolition SLP on merits, directing petitioners to approach High Court. Bench led by Surya Kant stressed remedy before jurisdictional court.
NEW DELHI: In relation to the ongoing demolition drive in Gurugram, the Supreme Court declined to consider the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on its merits. Instead, it directed the petitioners to urgently approach the High Court having territorial jurisdiction for appropriate relief.
The case came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that demolition work had already started on the basis of administrative instructions that, according to him, wrongly read an earlier interim order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
ALSO READ: CJI Gavai on Bulldozer Verdict: “Immense Satisfaction as It Dealt with Human Problems”
He argued that the High Court had not ordered demolition; it had only stayed the operation of a policy. On that basis, he sought a short-term protective order to preserve the status quo for a few days, stressing that the demolitions had begun that morning and that residents children included were physically present at the site.
Factual Backgrounds:
The dispute, as presented, involves residents of Sector 31, Gurugram (covering lanes 635 to 937). They challenged the High Court’s interim order dated April 2, 2026, which imposed a blanket stay on the ‘Stilt + 4’ (S+4) construction policy. The petitioners claimed that this interim stay had been “weaponized” by authorities to justify widespread demolition across residential areas.
They further pointed to an administrative direction dated April 16, 2026, which according to them treated the High Court’s order as authorizing immediate demolition of boundary walls, ramps, and green spaces. The petitioners argued that the High Court had not issued any such authorization. They also claimed that about 1,500 families, many of whom had lived in the area for decades, were facing impending demolition without being served individual show-cause notices or given a chance to be heard.
They added that the affected residents were not parties to the public interest litigation from which the High Court’s interim order arose, and therefore were effectively being condemned without an opportunity of participation.
The residents’ association also questioned the legality of the administrative direction, stating that it did not refer to any statutory basis and did not clearly spell out what would be treated as encroachment in a locality that had been established for years. They further criticized the High Court’s approach, alleging that it relied on a limited inspection in one locality to justify a stay impacting the larger region.
Hearing Before the Supreme Court:
During the hearing, the Chief Justice indicated that the Supreme Court should not readily intervene when the High Court could address the matter. He said, “If the High Court’s interim order is being misinterpreted…” and also observed,
“But these are unauthorized constructions. If the High Court is performing its constitutional duty, why should we, as the apex court, interfere?”
The Chief Justice stressed judicial discipline and pointed out that the appropriate forum for immediate relief was the High Court.
ALSO READ: Championing Justice Over ‘Bulldozer Rule’: CJI Gavai’s Mauritius Lecture on Rule of Law
When counsel sought interim protection from the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice reiterated,
“Why can’t you seek this relief from the High Court itself?”
This reinforced the Court’s view that first instance recourse for such grievances particularly involving factual issues and the implementation of administrative directions should be sought before the High Court.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP without granting any substantive relief. However, it ensured that the petitioners were not left without remedy. The Court granted liberty to urgently mention the matter before the High Court, and it specifically requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to take up the case at 1 PM or immediately after lunch. The direction was intended to secure prompt judicial attention given the continuing demolition activity.
The order said,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court has been requested to take it up at 1 PM or immediately after lunch.
Case Title: Case: Residents of Sector 31, Gurugram (Lane 635 to 937) v. Chief Administrator HSVP and others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE