| Transparency<\/td> | Actions must be documented and accountable<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n These guidelines reaffirm that executive convenience cannot override constitutional procedure, and any deviation may attract judicial scrutiny and liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n<\/span>Recent Cases And PILs: Courts Step In<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe judiciary has increasingly been called upon to intervene in cases involving alleged misuse of demolition powers. One of the earliest instances was the Jahangirpuri demolition case (2022), where the Supreme Court intervened and ordered status quo on demolition drives conducted shortly after communal violence, highlighting concerns about timing and intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/span>Recent Judicial Developments (2025\u20132026)<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n- Bombay High Court questioned demolition post Nagpur violence<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Directed rebuilding or compensation<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Orissa High Court declared demolition illegal<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Compensation awarded due to lack of due process<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
More recently, in 2025\u20132026, several developments have reinforced judicial resistance to arbitrary demolitions. The Bombay High Court, in a case arising out of the 2025 Nagpur violence, questioned the legality of demolishing the house of an accused without following due process and directed authorities to consider rebuilding or compensating for the loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Similarly, the Orissa High Court declared a demolition illegal in 2025, terming it an instance of bulldozer justice and awarding compensation to the affected parties due to lack of procedural compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/span>Role Of Public Interest Litigations (PILs)<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n |