The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, pointed out to the petitioners that their pleas involved disputed questions of fact which will have to be adjudicated by someone.

Agreeing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said the petitions are from across the country, and a factual inquiry will be required in each case.

The CJI said, “And the facts are bound to vary from case to case. The court might be required to summon the record and examine it.”

He said the SC had already laid down the broad principles, and it is now for the High Courts and courts below them to ensure compliance.

As Senior Advocates Sanjay Hegde, C U Singh and Huzefa Amadi pressed the bench to decide the case in the light of the November 13 judgment instead of leaving it to the High Courts, Justice Bagchi said “the backdrop of the judgement” “in fact really shocked the conscience of this court, because there was an infraction, not of municipal laws, but the foundation of presumption of innocence, where there was pick and choose of certain individuals accused of crime by going against their properties…”

Justice Bagchi stressed, “Yes, bulldozers need to be used when the rule of law is thwarted by a comfortable corruption between municipal authorities and illegal encroachers. But then we need also to protect that under the guise of implementing law, there should not be a terrorisation of individuals, or special treatment. It actually runs against one of the basic tenets that can a person claim negative equality…”

“No judgment can be looked at in isolation of the factual situation,” Justice Bagchi said.

Hegde said his client Ganesh Gupta had a fruit juice stall on which a bulldozer was used. Justice Bagchi said, “It can be used… Question is whether this person had an authorisation or the process of law was followed or not.”

Hegde said in his case, there was a TV anchor who sat on a bulldozer and came there. The CJI said all these facts will have to be looked at by someone.

Ahmadi said in his matter, which involved the demolition of a mosque, there was an egregious breach of the court’s order.

“The High Court gave me protection and said you will give time to file reply etc and till then don’t pass a final order. Even before a final order was served upon me, they came and demolished and then I had to move for contempt before this court and your lordships gave me order of status quo.”

He said, “So far as I am concerned, there was no action taken by authorities from 1999 to 2024. This action only got initiated on account of a letter which was issued by a local politician where he said how can you have Asia’s largest mosque in this particular state… So, therefore, this is not one of those standard cases, it is one of pick and choose… In my case, there was also no allegation of encroachment on public property…”

Senior Advocate Singh argued that if the SC doesn’t stand up for its own judgment, then who will?

“Who said we will not? We will stand for our judgments. We will direct the HCs to ensure compliance with our judgment,” said the CJI.

Justice Bagchi said what the bench intended to convey is that the judgment “cannot be read as a statute. Judgment has to be read in the context…”, more so when there is a caveat attached to it that the directions will not be attracted if there is unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies.