Prelims Workshop: Polity

Batch 7 | Topics 105–116 | High Court Landmark Judgments

High Court Landmark Judgments

12 Topics
Quick Navigation Index
105 Madras HC — Phone Tapping Case 2025 106 Bombay HC — Proof of Citizenship (2025) 107 Delhi HC — Vacancies in National Commission for Minorities 108 Madras HC — SC/ST Atrocities Act FIR 109 Delhi HC — Service Charges in Restaurants (2024) 110 Delhi HC — Lokpal, NPC Case (Lokpal Jurisdiction) 111 Karnataka HC — Sahyog Portal 112 Delhi HC — Free Speech, Online Defamation & Right to be Forgotten 113 Kerala HC — Live-In Relationships, Hijab, and Minority Rights 114 Bombay HC — Legislative Privileges & Proportionality 115 Madras HC — Governor's Powers, TN Bills and University Administration 116 Rajasthan HC / Allahabad HC — Bulldozer Demolitions Case
TOPIC 105

Madras HC — Phone Tapping Case 2025 (incorporating Economic Offences and Lawful Interception Framework)

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Madras HC in 2025 quashed a 2011 MHA interception order (Rs. 50 lakh bribery case), holding that secret phone tapping to detect a crime violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 — and that economic offences alone do not constitute "public emergency" or "public safety" under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act (now Telecommunications Act, 2023).
Key Facts
  • Madras HC (2025): Secret phone tapping to detect a crime violates Art. 21 right to privacy — quashed 2011 MHA interception order in Rs. 50 lakh bribery case
  • Held: Economic offences alone do NOT qualify as "public emergency" or "public safety" under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
  • 10 agencies authorised at Centre for lawful interception: IB, CBI, ED, NCB, CBDT, DRI, NIA, R&AW, Directorate of Signal Intelligence, Delhi Police Commissioner
  • Lawful framework: Indian Telegraph Act Section 5(2) / Telecommunications Act 2023 + Interception Rules 2024; IT Act Section 69 (for digital interception); Post Office Act 2023 (postal interception)
Important Points
  • Art. 21: Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017) — extends to telephonic and digital communications; surveillance must pass proportionality test: legality, legitimate aim, proportionality, procedural safeguards
  • Section 5(2), Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (now repealed by Telecom Act 2023): Interception only on occurrence of public emergency or in the interest of public safety — "public emergency" is a high threshold
  • PUCL v. UoI (1997): SC laid down safeguards for phone tapping — interception order only by Home Secretary level officer; reasoned written order; review committee within 2 months
  • Telecom (Procedures & Safeguards for Lawful Interception) Rules, 2024: New framework under Telecommunications Act 2023; 10 central agencies authorised; review committee mechanism retained
  • IT Act Section 69: Central/State Government can order interception of information in a computer resource — applies to WhatsApp, email, cloud data; PUCL-like safeguards extended to digital
  • Art. 19(1)(a): Right to communicate via telephone/internet is part of freedom of speech — restrictions must meet Art. 19(2) grounds only; surveillance beyond this is unconstitutional
  • Mass surveillance prohibition: Puttaswamy held individualised, targeted surveillance with judicial authorisation; mass surveillance without individualised orders = constitutional violation
TOPIC 106

Bombay HC — Proof of Citizenship (2025)

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Bombay HC in 2025 delivered a crucial ruling that Aadhaar, PAN card, voter ID, and even an Indian passport do NOT confer or prove citizenship — the Citizenship Act, 1955 is the controlling law, and the onus of proving citizenship lies on the individual.
  • This ruling is directly relevant to NRC debates, citizenship verification proceedings, and Foreigners Tribunal cases across India.
Key Facts
  • Bombay HC (2025): Aadhaar, PAN card, voter ID, and Indian passport do NOT confer or prove citizenship
  • Citizenship Act, 1955 is the controlling law on nationality — only this Act can confer citizenship; identity documents are evidentiary aids, not conclusive proof
  • Onus of proving citizenship lies on the INDIVIDUAL — not on the State to prove non-citizenship
  • Indian passport or electoral roll inclusion is NOT proof of citizenship — these documents can be forged or obtained fraudulently
Important Points
  • Art. 5–11: Citizenship provisions in the Constitution — original citizenship at commencement; subsequent citizenship governed by Parliament's law
  • Art. 11: Parliament's power to regulate the right of citizenship by law — Citizenship Act, 1955 is that law
  • Citizenship Act, 1955: Six modes of acquiring citizenship: by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation, incorporation of territory, and under CAA 2019
  • Aadhaar Act, 2016: Section 9 explicitly states Aadhaar shall NOT be used as proof of citizenship — courts have consistently upheld this
  • Puttaswamy (Aadhaar judgment, 2018): SC partially upheld Aadhaar Act but struck down its use for authentication by private entities; confirmed Aadhaar ≠ citizenship proof
  • Foreigners Tribunals (Assam NRC): Individuals declared foreigners must prove citizenship before Tribunals; Bombay HC ruling confirms identity documents alone are insufficient
  • CAA, 2019 and Citizenship Rules, 2024: Provides citizenship pathway for persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan — different from ordinary proof-of-citizenship proceedings
TOPIC 107

Delhi HC — Vacancies in National Commission for Minorities

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Delhi HC in 2024–25 sought the Central Government's response on long-pending vacancies in the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) — a statutory body established under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The HC's intervention highlights the constitutional importance of maintaining fully functional minority protection bodies under Articles 29–30.
Key Facts
  • Delhi HC (2024–25): Sought Central Government response on long-pending vacancies in the National Commission for Minorities (NCM)
  • NCM: Statutory body established under National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992; notified minorities — Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians (Parsis), Jains
  • NCM mandate: Safeguard minority rights; review constitutional and legal safeguards; make recommendations to government; investigate specific complaints
Important Points
  • Art. 29: Right of minorities to conserve distinct language, script, or culture — NCM safeguards this right
  • Art. 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions — NCM investigates complaints of violations
  • Art. 30(1): All minorities — religious or linguistic — have right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice
  • National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992: NCM Chairperson + 6 members; at least one member from each notified minority community; appointed by Central Government
  • NCM vs National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI): Two distinct bodies; NCMEI (under NCMEI Act, 2004) deals specifically with minority educational institution status under Art. 30
  • TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002): 11-judge bench; established framework for minority educational institutions under Art. 30 — NCM's work builds on this
  • Art. 165: Advocate General for States — parallel to Attorney General at Centre; minority rights bodies advise on law reform for minority protection
TOPIC 108

Madras HC — SC/ST Atrocities Act FIR

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Madras HC enforced the 2018 Amendment's mandate that police CANNOT conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR for cognisable offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
  • This ruling directly responds to the SC's controversial Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018) ruling — which had introduced a preliminary inquiry requirement that was subsequently nullified by the 2018 Amendment.
Key Facts
  • Madras HC ruling: Police CANNOT conduct preliminary inquiry on cognisable offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — FIR must be registered immediately
  • Section 18A(1)(a) of SC/ST Act (inserted by 2018 Amendment): No preliminary inquiry required for FIR registration under the Act
  • Investigations must be completed within 60 days; chargesheets must be filed before Special Courts within 60 days of arrest
  • Context: SC's Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018) had introduced preliminary inquiry and prior approval requirements — Parliament overruled this via 2018 Amendment
Important Points
  • Art. 17: Abolition of untouchability — SC/ST Atrocities Act is the legislative implementation of Arts. 15, 17, and 21 for protection of SCs/STs from violence and discrimination
  • Art. 15(2): Prohibition of discrimination in public places — SC/ST Act goes further, criminalising social and physical atrocities
  • SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Defines 22 atrocities specific to SCs/STs; cognisable, non-bailable; Special Courts for trial; Special Public Prosecutors
  • 2018 Amendment: Nullified SC's Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018) which had required: (a) preliminary inquiry before FIR; (b) prior sanction of appointing authority for arrest of public servant — both removed by Amendment
  • Section 18 SC/ST Act: No anticipatory bail for persons accused under the Act — upheld by SC in Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020); 2018 Amendment reaffirmed no anticipatory bail
  • Special Courts: Designated HC judges preside; exclusive jurisdiction over SC/ST Act cases; must complete trial within 2 months
  • National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Art. 338) and NCST (Art. 338A): Monitor implementation of SC/ST Act; report annually to President
TOPIC 109

Delhi HC — Service Charges in Restaurants (2024)

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • In 2024, the Delhi HC ruled that service charges (tips) in restaurants must be VOLUNTARY — they cannot be compulsorily levied or included in bills without consumer consent.
  • This ended a 3-year legal battle following the CCPA's 2022 guidelines banning automatic service charges.
  • The ruling protects consumers' rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Key Facts
  • Delhi HC (2024): Service charges/tips must be VOLUNTARY — cannot be compulsorily levied or automatically added to restaurant bills
  • 2022 CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) Guidelines: Had already banned automatic service charges in hotels/restaurants — HC ruling legally affirmed these guidelines
  • 3-year legal battle: Restaurant industry had challenged CCPA guidelines; HC dismissed the challenge and upheld consumer protection
Important Points
  • Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Establishes CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) with powers to regulate unfair trade practices — replacing Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  • CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority): Statutory body under Consumer Protection Act, 2019; can issue guidelines, recall products, impose penalties; Chairperson = DG rank IAS officer
  • Unfair Trade Practice (Section 2(47) CPA 2019): Includes misleading advertisements, deceptive pricing — mandatory service charge without disclosure is an unfair trade practice
  • Art. 19(1)(g): Right to carry on trade — restaurants have this right; but they cannot impose charges that amount to unfair trade practices violating consumer rights
  • Art. 21: Right to life — SC has interpreted this to include right to livelihood and right to fair dealing; forced payment of tips through compulsory service charges violates consumer dignity
  • Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions: District (up to Rs. 1 crore), State (up to Rs. 10 crore), National (above Rs. 10 crore) — hierarchy for consumer complaints
  • Packaged Commodities Rules: MRP (Maximum Retail Price) includes all taxes; any additional mandatory charge beyond MRP = violation of Legal Metrology Act, 2009
TOPIC 110

Delhi HC — Lokpal, NPC Case (Lokpal Jurisdiction)

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Delhi HC in 2024–25 quashed Lokpal proceedings against the Defence Secretary in a National Productivity Council (NPC) promotion irregularities case — holding that the Lokpal had exceeded its jurisdiction.
  • Lokpal can only investigate complaints involving the Prevention of Corruption Act; administrative irregularities and service matters (like promotion anomalies) are outside its statutory mandate.
Key Facts
  • Delhi HC: Quashed Lokpal proceedings against the Defence Secretary regarding NPC promotion irregularities
  • Held: Lokpal exceeded its jurisdiction — complaints must strictly involve the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and allied offences
  • NPC (National Productivity Council) promotion irregularities = administrative/service matter, NOT a corruption offence under Prevention of Corruption Act
Important Points
  • Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Lokpal's jurisdiction limited to offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 committed by public servants — cannot investigate general administrative misconduct
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Defines offences of bribery, gratification, criminal misconduct; Lokpal investigates these; service matters are NOT within PCA scope
  • Art. 323B: Parliament may establish tribunals for adjudication of disputes — Lokpal is under this authority; its jurisdiction is statutory, not unlimited
  • Lokpal composition: Chairperson + up to 8 members (50% judicial); investigates PM (with special conditions), Ministers, MPs, and Group A/B/C/D government officials
  • Jurisdiction over PM: With full bench of Lokpal + specific conditions (no investigation into national security, public order matters)
  • Service matters (promotions, transfers, seniority): Governed by Central Administrative Tribunal (Art. 323A) — exclusive jurisdiction over central service disputes; not Lokpal's domain
  • Art. 311: Protection of civil servants — dismissal, removal, reduction in rank only after inquiry; service irregularities go through disciplinary proceedings, not Lokpal
TOPIC 111

Karnataka HC — Sahyog Portal (incorporating MHA Sahyog Portal)

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • In 2025, the Karnataka HC rejected X (formerly Twitter)'s challenge to the MHA's Sahyog Portal — which allows police officers to send takedown notices directly to social media platforms.
  • The HC held that platforms lose Section 79 IT Act safe harbour immunity if they fail to act on such notices.
  • X has appealed to the SC, arguing the portal enables censorship without judicial oversight, drawing comparisons to the struck-down Fact Check Unit.
Key Facts
  • Karnataka HC (2025): Rejected X's challenge to MHA's Sahyog Portal — portal is legally valid under IT Act framework
  • Sahyog Portal: MHA platform enabling police officers to send content takedown notices directly to social media platforms
  • Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, 2000: Intermediaries LOSE safe harbour immunity if they fail to act on notices from government or court — basis for Sahyog Portal compliance obligation
  • X (formerly Twitter) argued: Portal enables content removal without judicial review — similar to struck-down IT Amendment Fact Check Unit (FCU)
  • Planned amendments: Restrict takedown authority to Joint Secretary (Centre) and DIG (State) levels; reasoned intimation mandatory
  • X has filed appeal before SC — matter sub judice
Important Points
  • Section 79, IT Act, 2000: Safe harbour for intermediaries — platforms not liable for third-party content if they observe due diligence AND comply with government/court orders to remove unlawful content
  • Section 79(3)(b): Safe harbour immunity lost when intermediary receives actual knowledge of unlawful content via government/court notice and fails to expeditiously remove it
  • Art. 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech — takedown without judicial review raises free speech concerns; Shreya Singhal (2015) held takedowns must follow procedure established by law
  • Shreya Singhal v. UoI (2015): Struck down Section 66A IT Act; held Section 79(3)(b) valid only if takedown notices come from courts; SC directed intermediaries to act only on court orders — Sahyog Portal stretches this by allowing police notices
  • IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021: Rule 3 — due diligence obligations; Rule 4 — additional obligations for Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs) with 5 million+ users
  • FCU (Fact Check Unit): Established under 2023 IT Rules Amendment; SC stayed its operation (2024) as it violated Art. 19(1)(a) — X argues Sahyog has similar effect
  • DPDP Act, 2023 and content regulation: Distinct from privacy law; content moderation governed by IT Act framework
TOPIC 112

Delhi HC — Free Speech, Online Defamation & Right to be Forgotten

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Delhi HC operationalised the right to be forgotten in 2024–25, issuing guidelines specifying conditions under which Google must delist search results — balancing Article 21 (privacy, dignity) against Article 19(1)(a) (right to information).
  • The guidelines address cases involving acquitted persons, victims of crime, and individuals with outdated or contextually irrelevant information in search results.
Key Facts
  • Delhi HC (2024–25): Issued guidelines specifying conditions under which Google must delist search results — operationalising right to be forgotten
  • Balancing test: Art. 21 (privacy and dignity) vs Art. 19(1)(a) (public's right to information) — neither is absolute; context determines which prevails
  • Cases where delisting may be ordered: Acquitted persons, victims of crime, persons with outdated/irrelevant data, private individuals vs public figures
Important Points
  • K.S. Puttaswamy (2017): Right to Privacy includes informational privacy — right to control how personal information appears in public domain; right to be forgotten flows from this
  • Art. 21: Right to life and dignity — outdated criminal charges, defamatory content, or private information in perpetual search results violates dignity dimension of Art. 21
  • Art. 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech includes right to receive information — but this does not entitle access to all personal information indefinitely; must be balanced against privacy
  • DPDP Act, 2023 Section 13: Right to erasure — Data Principal (individual) can withdraw consent and request deletion of personal data from Data Fiduciaries (platforms)
  • EU GDPR Article 17: "Right to erasure" or "right to be forgotten" — landmark in EU; Google Spain v. AEPD (2014, CJEU) first established this right against search engines
  • Online Defamation: Truth is a defence in India (unlike English law historically); public interest also a defence — HC guidelines distinguish between legitimate public interest content and outdated prejudicial data
  • Contempt of Court: Search results about pending cases — delisting may be ordered to prevent prejudice; but reporting court proceedings is protected speech
TOPIC 113

Kerala HC — Live-In Relationships, Hijab, and Minority Rights

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Kerala HC delivered a cluster of judgments in 2024–25 on personal liberty and religious rights: protecting live-in relationships under Article 21 as an expression of decisional autonomy; upholding institutional uniform rules (Hijab case) as consistent with institutional autonomy; and holding that the State cannot give preference to any religion in citizenship processing — "religion is secondary, citizenship is primary."
Key Facts
  • Kerala HC: Protected live-in relationships under Art. 21 — decisional autonomy to choose a life partner and lifestyle is a protected dimension of the right to life
  • Kerala HC: Upheld institutional uniform/dress code rules as consistent with institutional autonomy — did not amount to religious discrimination
  • Kerala HC: State cannot give preference based on religion in citizenship processing — "religion is secondary, citizenship is primary"
Important Points
  • Art. 21: Right to life includes decisional autonomy — right to choose partner, lifestyle, and living arrangements is protected; live-in relationships between consenting adults are constitutionally protected
  • Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): SC held live-in relationships of long duration covered under PWDVA as "relationship in nature of marriage" — Kerala HC builds on this in 2024–25
  • Art. 25: Right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion — but subject to public order, morality, and health; institutional rules on dress code can be a reasonable restriction
  • Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (Karnataka Hijab case, 2022): SC left question open (2:1 split); Kerala HC's ruling on institutional autonomy is a significant HC contribution to this debate
  • Art. 15(1): Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion — citizenship processing must be religion-neutral; preference on religious grounds violates this
  • Art. 14: Right to equality before law — uniform application of citizenship norms regardless of religion is an Art. 14 mandate
  • CAA, 2019: Provides citizenship on religious grounds for specific persecuted minorities from specific countries — Kerala HC ruling distinguishes general citizenship processing from CAA's specific statutory exception
TOPIC 114

Bombay HC — Legislative Privileges & Proportionality

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • The Bombay HC applied the proportionality doctrine to review the Maharashtra Assembly's decision to expel members — distinguishing between legislative immunity (what legislators say/do inside the House, which is immune from court proceedings) and legislative punishment (expulsion or suspension, which engages fundamental rights and is subject to judicial review if disproportionate).
Key Facts
  • Bombay HC: Applied proportionality doctrine to review Maharashtra Assembly decisions on expulsion of members
  • Held: Legislative punishments (expulsion, suspension) are subject to judicial review when fundamental rights are engaged
  • Distinguished: Legislative IMMUNITY (Arts. 105/194) — speeches, votes, proceedings inside House are absolutely immune from court proceedings; vs Legislative PUNISHMENT — disciplinary action by the House
Important Points
  • Art. 105(1): MPs shall have freedom of speech in Parliament — absolutely protected; no court proceedings for anything said in Parliament
  • Art. 105(2): MPs not liable to any court proceedings in respect of vote given in Parliament; publication under Parliamentary authority is protected
  • Art. 194: Identical privileges for State Legislature members — freedom of speech, immunity from court proceedings
  • Art. 105(3): Parliamentary privileges are those of British House of Commons as of 1950; Parliament can codify privileges by law — no comprehensive codification yet
  • Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker (2007): SC held that legislative privilege of expulsion can be judicially reviewed — courts can examine if expulsion was arbitrary or violated natural justice or fundamental rights
  • Proportionality test in administrative law: Must consider whether punishment is proportionate to misconduct; expulsion for minor infraction may be disproportionate and violate Art. 14
  • Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary (Maharashtra crisis, 2023): SC intervened in legislative proceedings — established that fundamental rights review of legislative action is permissible
TOPIC 115

Madras HC — Governor's Powers, TN Bills and University Administration

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • Madras HC rulings served as crucial precursors to the SC's landmark Advisory Opinion (2025, 16th Presidential Reference) on Governors' assent powers.
  • The HC consistently held that the Tamil Nadu Governor is bound by the Council of Ministers' advice in university vice-chancellor appointments — and that unilateral VC appointments made without ministerial concurrence are unconstitutional.
Key Facts
  • Madras HC: Governor is bound by the Council of Ministers' advice regarding university vice-chancellor appointments
  • Declared unilateral VC appointments made by the TN Governor without ministerial concurrence as unconstitutional
  • HC reasoning followed in subsequent SC ruling (2025 Advisory Opinion) on Governor's pocket veto and assent powers
Important Points
  • Art. 163: Governor acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers — except in matters where the Governor is required by/under the Constitution to exercise discretion
  • Art. 163(2): Governor's discretion is final and the validity of anything done shall not be called in question — but SC has held this does not prevent judicial review of whether discretion was properly exercised
  • Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974): SC held President/Governor acts on Cabinet's advice in virtually all matters — individual discretion is extremely limited
  • State of TN v. Governor of TN (SC, 2025): SC Advisory Opinion on 16th Presidential Reference — held Governor must act within reasonable time on state bills; pocket veto is unconstitutional
  • Art. 200: Governor assents to, withholds assent from, or reserves a state bill for President's consideration — but cannot sit on bills indefinitely
  • University VC appointments: Tamil Nadu University laws require Governor (as Chancellor) to act on advice of search committee recommended by State government — unilateral appointments override this
  • Art. 356 implications: TN-Governor friction was so severe that Art. 356 invocation was discussed publicly — SC intervention through advisory opinion prevented constitutional crisis
TOPIC 116

Rajasthan HC / Allahabad HC — Bulldozer Demolitions Case

High Court Landmark Judgments
Why in News
  • Rajasthan HC and Allahabad HC's scrutiny of "bulldozer justice" — demolishing homes of crime accused as a punitive measure — directly triggered the SC's landmark November 2024 nationwide guidelines barring arbitrary demolitions.
  • The SC held that demolishing property without due process as a punishment for criminal accusations violates Articles 14, 21, and 300A.
Key Facts
  • Rajasthan HC and Allahabad HC examined "bulldozer justice" — demolishing homes of accused persons without due process as extra-judicial punishment
  • HC scrutiny triggered SC issuing comprehensive nationwide guidelines in November 2024 barring arbitrary demolitions
  • SC (Nov 2024) guidelines: Barred all demolitions without: prior show-cause notice (15 days), personal hearing, reasoned order, time to appeal — held UP and MP actions violated these procedures
  • SC also held: Demolition as punishment for criminal accusation (not for genuine building violation) is constitutionally impermissible
Important Points
  • Art. 300A: No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law — demolition must have legal authority; cannot be executive action without statutory basis
  • Art. 21: Right to life includes right to shelter/home — demolishing home without due process violates this; even if person is accused of crime, they retain Art. 21 rights
  • Art. 14: Right to equality before law — selective demolition targeting accused persons from one community or political affiliation violates equality norm
  • Art. 20(1): No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force — demolition as punishment for accusation (not conviction) violates this principle
  • Municipal and town planning laws: Illegal constructions can be demolished but only after notice, hearing, and reasoned order; SC guidelines codify these procedural requirements nationwide
  • Rule of Law: SC held executive cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner — bulldozer demolitions bypassed rule of law; Maneka Gandhi (1978) procedure must be fair, just, reasonable
  • SC guidelines (Nov 2024): 15-day prior notice; personal hearing; written reasoned order; time for appeal before demolition executed; senior officer must certify compliance

UPSC Polity Revision Complete

UPSCTREE | "Atto Deepo Bhava"