Ensuring Due Process in Demolition Actions: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Shelter Under Article 21

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2025 INSC 480), addressed the high-handed and illegal demolition of residential structures by the statutory authorities without strictly following the prescribed procedure. The judgment arose out of multiple appeals that were clubbed together owing to similar facts. The appellants, whose homes in Uttar Pradesh were demolished, challenged the legality of the actions undertaken by the Prayagraj Development Authority (“PDA”) under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“1973 Act”).

At the heart of the case was the question of whether the demolition had been effected in compliance with principles of natural justice and the requirement of serving adequate notice before depriving citizens of a fundamental right to shelter. Key issues pertained to proper service of a show-cause notice, providing sufficient time to respond or appeal, and ensuring that any demolition orders complied with the requisite statutory framework.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, per Justice Abhay S. Oka, held that the demolition undertaken by the PDA was illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the right to shelter as an integral element of the right to life. The Court noted several procedural lapses:

• Service of Notice: PDA officials did not make multiple, genuine attempts to serve the show-cause notice in person, as mandated by Section 43 of the 1973 Act. They instead resorted almost immediately to affixing notices, which, by law, should be a last resort.
• Insufficient Time to Appeal: The demolition order was carried out within a mere 24 hours of actual receipt of a subsequent communication, depriving appellants of their statutory right to file an appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act.
• Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The summary manner in which the demolition was executed afforded no reasonable opportunity of being heard, contravening fundamental legal protections.
• Costs Imposed: Recognizing the injustice caused, the Court directed the PDA to pay costs of INR 10 Lakhs (Ten Lakhs) in each case to the appellants.

The Court strongly reiterated that “bulldozer justice” is antithetical to the rule of law. The apex Court underscored that administrative authorities must scrupulously follow due process, especially when the outcome affects a basic human right such as shelter.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court emphasized the necessity of ensuring a proper and fair demolition process by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291). That earlier decision set forth clear guidelines regarding:

• Mandatory service of show-cause notices with at least 15 days to respond.
• Requiring the authorities to attempt personal service and, only upon multiple genuine failures, proceed with affixture or registered post.
• Ensuring the notice includes specific details regarding the alleged illegality, the violations, documents to be furnished, and the date and forum for personal hearing.
• Obligating municipal bodies to set up digital portals for enhanced transparency and accountability in the demolition process.

Though Re: Directions was a subsequent pronouncement to the events complained of by the appellants, the underlying principles of due process, right of hearing, and adherence to statutory provisions were already embedded in Section 27 of the 1973 Act, read with Section 43 regarding service of notice.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning hinges on the interplay between statutory provisions (Section 27 and Section 43 of the 1973 Act) and constitutional guarantees (Article 21). In essence, the Court held that:

1. Compliance with Statutory Protocol: Section 27 of the 1973 Act explicitly requires show-cause notices and the provision of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Section 43 further specifies the methods and conditions for serving notices, which include genuine attempts at personal service over more than one day and, failing that, permissible alternatives such as affixing or sending by registered post.
2. Due Process and Article 21: The Court reaffirmed that the State must not deprive persons of shelter without following lawful procedure. The right to shelter has been interpreted as a facet of the right to life under Article 21, which is inviolable unless taken away by clearly prescribed law and fair procedure.
3. Remedial Mechanism: Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act provides for an appellate remedy, which was never realistically available to the appellants because the authorities proceeded with the demolition before giving them sufficient time to challenge the demolition order.
4. Need for Multiple Attempts of Service: The Court meticulously analyzed the phrase “if such a person cannot be found” in Section 43(1)(d), holding that it requires repeated efforts to serve the occupant in person. Only if these repeated efforts fail may the authority affix the notice and/or resort to registered post.
5. Imposing Costs: In light of the blatant disregard for statutory provisions and constitutional protections, the Court imposed significant costs to compensate the appellants and to deter similar illegal conduct by other authorities.

Impact

This judgment sends a strong message to governmental and statutory bodies that demolition of structures—particularly residential ones—cannot be undertaken lightly or without strict adherence to the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies:

• Heightened Responsibility of State Authorities: Development authorities must ensure that show-cause notices or demolition orders are served in a transparent and verifiable manner, allowing property owners an opportunity to respond or appeal.
• Increased Emphasis on Right to Shelter: By reiterating that the right to shelter is integral to Article 21, this decision safeguards housing rights against administrative arbitrariness.
• Deterrent Costs: The imposition of exemplary costs is indicative of the judiciary’s readiness to penalize dereliction of procedural compliance, thereby discouraging “bulldozer justice.”
• Potential Revision of Demolition Procedures: Government agencies may be compelled to revise their standard operating procedures so as to incorporate multiple attempts at personal service, maintain thorough documentation, and ensure compliance with the statutory waiting periods before resorting to demolitions.

Going forward, legal practitioners representing both authorities and private individuals must pay close heed to these clarified procedural requirements. Abrupt and unannounced demolitions, particularly of residential structures, are likely to face judicial scrutiny and severe repercussions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Right to Shelter (Article 21 of the Constitution): The Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded its interpretation of “life” to include the right to live with human dignity. Consequently, because a home is foundational to human dignity, the right to shelter falls within the ambit of personal liberty and cannot be taken away arbitrarily.

2. Service of Notice and Due Process: Service of notice is the process by which an individual is formally informed of a legal or administrative action against them. “Due process” requires that such notice be properly served, providing the recipient with ample opportunity to contest or rectify the situation. Under Section 43 of the 1973 Act, if personal service is impractical after multiple good-faith attempts, affixing the notice or sending it by registered post becomes permissible.

3. Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973: This statute empowers development authorities to order the removal of unauthorized structures. However, it also prescribes necessary safeguards such as issuance of a show-cause notice, grant of 15 to 40 days to respond, and an appellate remedy. Non-compliance with these safeguards renders any demolition order illegal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s emphatic reaffirmation of the right to shelter and the need for scrupulous adherence to statutory due process marks a significant milestone in protecting citizens against abrupt demolitions. In holding the Prayagraj Development Authority liable for costs and explicitly condemning “bulldozer justice,” the Court has established a robust precedent discouraging future agencies from resorting to similar heavy-handed tactics.

For citizens, the judgment underscores their right to challenge demolition orders in a meaningful timeframe. For governmental authorities, it serves as a clarion call to implement transparent and just procedures. Ultimately, by condemning the arbitrary destruction of homes and reinforcing the constitutional norms of fairness, the Supreme Court has once again underscored the fundamental nature of the right to shelter in India’s democratic fabric.