Supreme Court Declines To Intervene In Gurugram Demolition Drive, Gives Liberty To Residents To Approach High Court Today

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging an ongoing demolition drive in Gurugram, directing the petitioners to instead approach the High Court.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the matter urgently before the bench, noting that demolitions had already commenced that morning.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "On oral mentioning, the matter is taken on board. The Special Leave Petition being against an interim order, it is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make an urgent mentioning before the High Court during the course of the day. We request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to entertain the oral mentioning either at 1:00 p.m. or immediately after lunch at 1:45 p.m."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the Petitioners-Residents.

Sankaranarayanan noted that the High Court had merely issued an injunction requiring adherence to the previous policy. Despite this, local authorities in Gurgaon interpreted the ruling as a mandate to begin demolishing structures throughout the streets. Consequently, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed urgently the previous day to address this misinterpretation.

Sankaranarayanan argued that local authorities were misconstruing an interim order from the High Court to carry out large-scale demolitions of legal constructions, including boundary walls and green areas, without issuing mandatory show-cause notices. He highlighted the distress of approximately 1,500 families who have resided in the area for over three decades.

He submitted, "The first one regards these demolitions which are supposed to commence in Gurgaon right now, regarding a High Court order which had nothing—no direction regarding demolition, nothing of any sort. It was only regarding the stilt-plus, whether it's permissible or not. The High Court passed an injunction saying no, you should stick to the old policy… That's all it was. Purportedly based on that, directions have been issued by the local authority in Gurgaon that you go into each of the streets and start demolishing. The problem is the demolition is happening now, so we have filed an SLP… but now we have filed the SLP as of yesterday, urgently. Because the interpretation that the authorities are giving is that..."

CJI Kant replied, "That interpretation you seek from the High Court."

Sankaranarayanan requested, "Could I then just be given a small protection because right now no notices at all, but demolitions are taking place of our compound walls, trees are going."

CJI Kant remarked, "Let's say if these are all unauthorized constructions. In Gurgaon, who knows, we have a little fair idea. Yes. If the High Court in its constitutional duty, taking a drive to stop or prevent or dismantle… This is not asking for a hindrance to be caused to the High Court because the High Court never said anything about demolition."

Sankaranarayanan said, "The problem is misconstruing that right now without any notices to any individual. Your Lordships' orders regarding demolition... then will your Lordships do me the small indulgence of granting me just four days' status quo? I'll go to the High Court."

CJI Kant said, "Go to High Court."

Sankaranarayanan emphasized that the demolition had already begun at 9 a.m. that morning. He pleaded for a three-day status quo, highlighting the impact on individual residents. He described scenes of children standing at their doors while JCB machines demolished walls and slopes directly outside their homes. He maintained that these were legal constructions being destroyed without notice.

Sankaranarayanan informed the Court, "No, but the demolition is happening from 9 a.m. today, my Lords. Demolition happening from 9 a.m. today. We had filed it yesterday. Urgently mentioned before the Registrar. No, I'm saying just for three days, just three days. Give me a status quo… Would your Lordships just grant me the indulgence of just three days' status quo? Because in demolition matters… We are individual residents. Your Lordships may see copies of the petition. I have photos. There are children standing at the door while the JCB comes in and starts demolishing slopes from outside, demolishing walls. Trees are being brought down. It's happening right outside their compound walls and on their compound walls without a notice. These are completely legal constructions."

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the Residents of Sector 31, Gurugram (Lanes 635 to 937). The conflict stemmed from an interim order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on April 2, 2026, which imposed a state-wide stay on the 'Stilt + 4' (S+4) construction policy.

The Court took the matter on board following the oral mentioning. Since the petition challenged an interim order, the bench disposed of the SLP but granted the petitioners liberty to mention the matter urgently before the High Court that same day. The Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to hear the mention at 1:00 p.m. or immediately after lunch at 1:45 p.m.

Cause Title: Residents of Sector 31, Gurugram (Lanes 635 to 937) v. Chief Administration HSVP [Diary No. - 25507/2026]