New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has expressed strong disapproval of attempts to misuse its writ jurisdiction in matters relating to unauthorised constructions, cautioning that the judicial process cannot be reduced to a tool for ulterior motives.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, while disposing of certain petitions concerning a disputed property at Shaheen Bagh, imposed costs of ₹50,000, payable to the Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Trust.
The Court noted that the individual behind the petitions resided nearly 2.5 kilometres away from the property and had no direct legal or fundamental right affected by the alleged construction.
"Clearly, no fundamental or legal rights are being affected... especially when the petitioner does not even reside in the vicinity of the subject property," the Court observed. It further remarked that multiple similar petitions had been filed earlier, raising questions about the bona fides of such litigation.
Relying on earlier precedents, Justice Pushkarna emphasised that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked by parties with "unclean hands and ulterior motives." While reiterating that nauthorised constructions must always be dealt with firmly, the Court stressed it would not extend support to those seeking to misuse legal remedies for personal gain.
The Union of India was represented by Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC, assisted by Umar Hashmi, Advocate, while Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC, with Rahul Mourya, Advocate, appeared for other respondents. Private respondents were represented by Rajesh Kumar Singh, Rohish Arora, and Amit Biduri, Advocates.
During the proceedings, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), represented by Abhinav Singh, ASC-MCD, along with Rishabh Mittal, Advocate, filed a status report confirming that demolition action against the property had already been carried out on September 17-18, 2025. The SHO, Shaheen Bagh Police Station, through counsel, also confirmed providing necessary assistance during the drive.
Taking a cautious view to prevent similar misuse in the future, the Court directed that any fresh petitions filed by the same litigant in relation to unauthorised constructions must carry a copy of this order on record for the Court's consideration.