Demolition Drives at the Confluence of Urban Policy and Law: Perspectives from Batla House, International Best Practices, and Indian Judicial Guidelines

Index of Headings

1. Introduction
2. Insights from the Madrasi Camp Case in Delhi
A preview of Shabnam Burney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors
3. The Batla House Demolition – What is the Case About?
4. The Supreme Court's Rules in the Indian Legal System
5. Lessons from International Perspectives on Demolition Campaigns
5.1. United States: Elderly Domain and Compensation
5.2. Germany: Permissions and Public Law Control
5.3. Laws that Mandate Demolition in Singapore
6. Comparative Evaluation between the Countries
7. The Road Ahead – What Should the Next Move Be?
8. Conclusion
9. FAQs

Introduction

There is widespread debate across the globe about the legality of demolition drives,particularly in societies with political or social instability and rapid urbanization. The struggle to find equilibrium between local government authority and constitutional protections has been thrust into the public domain in India through the recent Batla House case in Delhi. A perusal of the global practices shows that there are similarities and distinctions between national responses (legal) to the conflict between individual rights and state authority.

Insights from the Madrasi Camp Case in Delhi - A preview of Shabnam Burney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors

The Jhuggi settlement known as Bhoomiheen Camp, which had been in Kalkaji, south-central Delhi, since the 1970s, was forcibly relocated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in June 2023. After being evicted, many residents who had not been moved filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court, which halted the eviction process until the DDA demolished the remaining settlement in late June 2025. The DDA acted in compliance with the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board's (DUSIB) 2015 Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy. (para 4 &
5)

The Delhi High Court's continuous observation of unlawful encroachments along the Yamuna River and its drains, including the Barapullah drain, gave rise to the issue at hand.The Court stated in the case that the illegal constructions at Madrasi Camp had exacerbated pollution and waterlogging in the surrounding areas, especially during the monsoon season.

The court in its decision emphasized the urgency of relocating Madrasi Camp dwellers to Narela due to the approaching monsoon season and the need for timely clearance of the Barapullah drain to prevent waterlogging in nearby areas. The court has been involved in the matter for over ten months, with several Madrasi Camp residents affected by the demolition since September 2024. The contention of a lack of notice regarding the proposed demolition was deemed devoid of merit and was held not tenable. (para. 21)

The Batla House Demolition -what is the case about?

In June 2025, AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan submitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to respond to demolition notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in the Batla House area. The court ultimately told the residents to file individual cases within 3 days and allowed Khan to withdraw the PIL. This episode raised a few significant ethical and legal
issues:

1. Some residents claimed that the DDA had issued unclear demolition notices that did not detail the alleged violations or leave sufficient time for residents to respond.
2. Supreme Court Guidelines - The DDA had issued the demolition notices in violation of the Supreme Court's due process guidelines issued in 2024 that required notice 15 days in advance and petition it (the notice period).

Now, the High Court's decision to require individual petitions rather than allowing a broader blanket PIL illustrated the common judicial stance that individual cases should be heard upon

their own merits and gave an impression that all systemic issues could not be eliminated through one singular case.

The Supreme Court's Rules in the Indian Legal System

In 2024 the Supreme Court of India issued complex rules to ensure the sanctity of due process and safeguard citizens' rights in response to multiple petitions seeking justice for arbitrary property demolitions. The regulations stipulate:

1. 15-day notice: Before beginning a demolition, officials are required to provide at least 15 days' notice. The notice needs to be posted on the property and delivered to the owners via registered mail
2. Rights to get heard: Where feasible, demolitions must give impacted parties a hearing and the chance to regularize their property.
3. Accountability and Transparency: If officials didn't think videos of demolitions were important, they might be found in contempt.
4. Refusing to use punitive demolition: Demolitions cannot be used as an extrajudicial form of punishment.

Lessons from International Perspectives on Demolition Campaigns

● United States: Elderly Domain and Compensation

OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1926.850(a): Need for an Engineering Survey The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates that a "competent person" perform an engineering survey of the structure before any demolition can begin. The survey's objective is to perform a functional inspection of the building, identifying its state, identifying potential hazards, and identifying any conditions that might make it unsafe to
perform demolition. The idea of keeping workers and the general public safe during the demolition process is reinforced by this federal safety standard, which is the one that is most commonly cited for demolition.

As long as fair compensation is given, the US federal government is permitted to appropriate private property for public use under the eminent domain doctrine. Zoning regulations also control demolitions, so those who are displaced ought to be entitled to alternate housing or compensation. There must be a genuine public good, as evidenced by the legal prohibitions on using eminent domain for demolitions solely for economic development.

● Germany: Permissions and Public Law Control

Building Permits:
According to the building regulations of the applicable Federal State (Bauordnungen der Bundesländer), a building permit (Baugenehmigung) is typically needed in Germany for the construction, modification, change of use, or demolition of a building. The purpose of the permit process is to prove that the proposed changes do, in fact, adhere to public law on issues like urban land-use planning, zoning, environmental protection, and hazard mitigation. It is also forbidden to demolish without a building permit.

Land Use Planning and Development Law:
Some municipalities are legally required to prepare urban land use plans (pursuant to the Federal Building Code—Baugesetzbuch (BauGB)) that set out the permissibility and limitations for any development or demolition in a specific region. This represents not only the planning discretion of the municipality but also the public plans of the municipality under Article 28(2) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). This includes encouraging compliance with federal and state law in formulating urban land use plans (sometimes referred to as 'master plans').

Expropriation and public interest:
Expropriation (compulsory purchase) of property is a legal, albeit extremely uncommon, act under applicable German law, as stated in Article 14(3) of the Basic Law. But in order for expropriation to take place, it needs a local statute, compensation, and a procedure that complies with local laws. When something is demolished for the public good, like infrastructure or significant urban renewal, due process must be followed, and proper compensation and/or relocation must be made.

Unkept and dangerous buildings:
If buildings are neglected, derelict, and dangerous, the authorities will order demolition regardless of the original build date. Some German states have also modified their building laws specifically to facilitate demolition of buildings that are vacant or structurally unsound,even without an owner's consent as long as the owner cannot establish that the public interest is better served by keeping that structure intact for its preservation.

● Laws that Mandate Demolition in Singapore

The Building Control Act 1989, its numerous subsidiary laws, the codified practice mentioned above, and numerous notifications from different agencies stating that these current regulations will be applicable when demolition work is being done all regulate demolition in Singapore. The pertinent legal provisions pertaining to demolition work and how they apply to demolition work are outlined below.

The 2003 Building Control Regulations (as modified)

The different kinds of minor demolition projects that are exempt from the need for approved and a permit are listed in Schedule 1 (Exempted Works). The following additional definitions of exemptions have been provided by the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025:

Regulation 13: Demolition of awnings or cantilevered roofs or structures that are more than 6 meters (but not more than 10 meters) in length.

Comparative Evaluation between the countries

Due Process and Administrative Efficiency: India has 15-day and 28-day notice and appeals periods, respectively. Over time, this time frame alone may be insufficient to overcome administrative inefficiencies and stifle the right to appeal.

The availability of rehabilitation housing and financing is are important factors that affect owners in both the US and Germany. In India, the sparse use of rehabilitation programs functions within a funding framework that might not be indicative of their origin.

A Difficult Approach to Stopping Discrimination by a Disenfranchised Group: "In India or other places where processes clarified and transparency is ensured, there is less transparency in non-expected places." This is one of the risks that you will always be quoted about a confined linked process: the fear of being targeted by intimidation by a marginalized group.From a planning perspective, the UK's stance occupies a less certain neutrality within a normative framework, which could potentially aid in combating quarter discrimination.

The Road Ahead - What should the next move be?

A much-needed reorganization of demolition drives is highlighted by the Batla House case:

1. Restructuring Local Governance: The local government must set up grievance redressal processes that are open, transparent, and accessible to all.
2. Legislative Restructuring: To ensure some enforceable and comparable protections,Parliament should think about codifying the Supreme Court's 2024 guidelines.
3. Global Best Practices: The United States can teach India a lot about equitable compensation and rehabilitation, and Poland can teach India a lot about legalizing first.

Conclusion

The federally required demolition laws in the US, India, Germany, Singapore, and the UK show a similar approach to ensuring due process for demolitions for the protection of the public and workers; they vary in the degree of enforcement and the importance placed on various components. Because the German statutory apparatus requires stricter adherence to planning regulations and oversight of the legal process, even technically incorrect demolitions are brought up and formally considered. This makes the German statutory apparatus unique.

Singapore has established regulatory frameworks that include pre-authorization, mandatory professionals, and fire, safety, and environmental communication codes. which all communicate a high level of order and minimal harm. Regulations requiring notice, hearings,and judicial review are being established by India's developing rule of law. However, the issue is still being maintained by enforcement gaps.

FAQs

Q.What does the Shabnam Burney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. case regarding the
eviction of the Delhi Madrasi Camp clarify?
A: The case brings to light the complex legal and humanitarian issues around forced evictions in Delhi. The Delhi High Court, citing imminent environmental issues such as pollution and waterlogging due to monsoon rains upheld the eviction of the residents of Madrasi Camp,adjacent to the Barapullah drain. The court rejected the argument of the residents that they were not notified. The case shows how the state adhered to the 2015 DUSIB Rehabilitation Policy, maintaining a balance between the long-standing rights of informal settlers and the public interest.

Q. What was the issue with the Batla House Demolition matter, and why was a legal response necessary?
A: AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in relationship with the DDA's demolition notices to the Batla House area. The residents argued that the DDA had failed to follow the precedent in the Supreme Court Guidelines (2024) about due process, which dictates that there must be a notice of at least fifteen (15) days for demolition and an opportunity for a hearing. The Delhi High Court stressed the importance of judicial analysis to be specific to the case rather than general legal remedies by allowing the PIL to be withdrawn and required the residents to
pursue individual matters.

Q. What are the main statutory laws governing demolitions in Singapore, Germany, and the USA?
A: In the USA eminent domain takes property for public use that is legitimate but requires fair compensation and the local, state or federal statutes provide statutory authority to take property and require the public agency to be the public agency with the responsibility to carry out eminent domain as an exception to rights of an individual to property; OSHA Regulation 29 CFR 1926.850(a) requires employers to conduct a safety walkout before demolition. In Germany a property is expropriated and requires due process and compensation as required in Article 14(3) of the Basic Law; demolition processes must comply with urban planning regulations by locality; German states require building permits and to follow requirements
related to the means in which the regulations are adopted; in Singapore small and minor developments can be exempt from a formal approval of the Building Control Act 1989, and the amended 2003 Regulations describe demolition processes and regulations.