The Delhi High Court has come down heavily on attempts to exploit its writ jurisdiction in matters of unauthorised construction.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made it clear that the judicial process can’t be turned into a weapon for vested interests.
Court Imposes ₹50,000 Costs
While disposing of a set of petitions linked to a disputed property at Shaheen Bagh, Justice Pushkarna imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the petitioner. The amount has been directed to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust.
The court noted that the petitioner did not live in the disputed property or even in its immediate vicinity but resided nearly 2.5 kilometres away. Highlighting this, the Court observed:
“Clearly, no fundamental or legal rights are being affected… especially when the petitioner does not even reside in the vicinity of the subject property.”
Justice Pushkarna also pointed out that multiple similar petitions had been filed earlier, raising doubts about the bona fides of the litigation. Referring to earlier legal precedents, the Court underlined that writ jurisdiction is not available to parties with “unclean hands and ulterior motives.”
The court, however, reiterated that unauthorised constructions must be addressed firmly by the authorities. What it would not tolerate, it stressed, is the misuse of legal remedies by those seeking to derive personal benefit under the guise of public interest.
Demolition Already Carried Out
During the hearing, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), represented by Abhinav Singh, ASC-MCD, along with Advocate Rishabh Mittal, submitted a status report. The report confirmed that demolition action against the disputed property had already been carried out on September 17–18, 2025.
Supporting this, counsel for the SHO of Shaheen Bagh Police Station informed the Court that the local police had extended full assistance during the demolition drive.
Lawyers Representing The Parties
On behalf of the Union of India, Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC, appeared with Advocate Umar Hashmi. For the other respondents, Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC, and Advocate Rahul Mourya were present. Private respondents were represented by Advocates Rajesh Kumar Singh, Rohish Arora, and Amit Biduri.
Preventing Future Misuse
To curb similar attempts at misusing the judicial process, the court issued a preventive direction. It ruled that if the same litigant files any fresh petitions regarding unauthorised constructions, the petition must include a copy of this order for the Court’s consideration.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
