new delhi, April 27
The Supreme Court on Monday permitted an urgent mentioning before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connection with the ongoing demolition drive in Gurugram, asking the Chief Justice of the High Court to take up the matter either before 1 pm or at 1:45 pm. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan to move the High Court after he sought interim protection for three days against demolitions of “stilt plus four” residential structures. He urged that the petitioners be granted a brief window to approach the High Court, pointing out that demolition activity had already begun across multiple areas. During the mentioning, Sankaranarayanan submitted that although the High Court had earlier directed adherence to the existing policy governing such constructions, authorities had launched widespread demolition drives at the ground level. He expressed concern over the manner in which the exercise was being carried out, stating that structures were being pulled down without adequate notice, affecting residents and causing disruption. He sought status quo for three days so that the affected parties could approach the High Court for relief. The Bench, however, noted the unauthorised nature of the constructions in question. “These are unauthorised structures. High Court has the power to look into this,” observed Chief Justice Kant, while allowing the petitioners to move the High Court. The demolition drive pertains to buildings constructed under the “stilt plus four” policy, where four residential floors are raised above stilt parking. The policy was stayed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court following a challenge through a PIL. Voicing concern over congested roads, overburdened sewage and drainage systems, and poor regulatory compliance, the court had ordered adherence to the prevailing policy.
Subsequent to those proceedings, authorities-initiated action against constructions alleged to be in violation of approved plans. Residents, however, contend that while the policy was stayed and compliance with prevailing norms was directed, there was no explicit order for large-scale demolitions.
