New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a petition challenging the ongoing demolition drive in Gurugram, instead directing the affected residents to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court for relief. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the plea but granted the petitioners liberty to make an urgent mentioning before the High Court later today. The Bench specifically requested the High Court’s Chief Justice to hear the matter either at 1:00 pm or immediately after the lunch recess at 1:45 pm.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners, argued that local authorities in Gurugram are carrying out demolitions without issuing mandatory show-cause notices. He alleged that officials are misconstruing a recent High Court interim order to justify the dismantling of what he claimed are “completely legal constructions.” However, the Chief Justice observed that if the High Court was performing its constitutional duty to address unauthorized constructions, the apex court should not hinder that process, especially if the grievance stemmed from an alleged misinterpretation of the High Court’s own orders.
The controversy is rooted in a significant policy shift regarding residential construction in Haryana. On April 2, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed the state government’s “stilt-plus-four floors” policy, which had permitted the construction of an additional residential floor above stilt parking. The High Court had expressed grave concerns that the state was prioritizing revenue over public safety. Following this stay, Haryana officials initiated an aggressive anti-encroachment campaign against unauthorized structures across urban areas, with Gurugram serving as the primary focus.
While Sankaranarayanan urged the Supreme Court to grant a status quo for a few days to allow the residents time to file their appeals, the Bench maintained that the High Court remains the appropriate forum for this dispute. The petitioners, who are individual residents, contend that they have been denied due process, while the state maintains that the drive is a necessary step to curb illegal urban expansion and comply with judicial oversight regarding building safety standards.
