Delhi’s Illegal Buildings: Harish Salve’s Warning — “You Can’t Throw People On The Street”
When Illegal Construction Becomes A Human Crisis
Delhi’s illegal buildings are no longer merely a question of unauthorised construction, building permissions or municipal enforcement. They have become a much larger question—one involving housing, public safety, governance, urban planning, accountability and the rights of ordinary citizens.
As the Supreme Court prepares to examine the issue of illegal construction in Delhi, the debate has once again moved sharply into the public domain. The obvious question is whether illegal structures should simply be demolished.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve offers a more complicated answer.
His position, as expressed in the discussion, is not that illegal construction should be tolerated. Quite the opposite. He makes a sharp distinction between the people who profit from illegal construction and the ordinary citizens who end up living in such buildings because lawful housing is unavailable or unaffordable.
And that distinction leads to his most powerful warning:
“You can’t throw people out on the street.”
That sentence captures the human dimension of Delhi’s decades-old construction crisis.
A City Where Illegality Has Become Widespread
Salve’s argument begins with the scale of the problem.
Recalling earlier litigation concerning Delhi’s unauthorised development, he suggested that a very substantial portion of the capital has developed outside the formal planning framework. He acknowledged that his recollection of the figures could be imperfect but described the problem as extensive and longstanding.
The underlying point is more important than any particular percentage.
Delhi has grown enormously.
Its population has expanded, land has become expensive, demand for housing has multiplied, and the formal planning system has struggled to keep pace.
When legitimate housing does not adequately meet demand, another market inevitably appears.
And that is where the story of Delhi’s building mafias begins.
Also Read: AI-Generated Fake Nude Images: Minnesota vs. xAI and the Future of Deepfake Law
The Housing Problem Behind The Illegal Building Problem
One of Salve’s strongest observations is that housing is not a luxury.
Food, clothing and housing constitute basic human necessities. Yet, according to the argument presented, housing policy cannot be designed only around the poorest sections of society while ignoring the middle class and lower-middle class.
This creates a difficult contradiction.
A family may want a lawful home.
But lawful homes may be:
- too expensive;
- unavailable in the required location;
- subject to complicated approvals;
- insufficient for the size of the family; or
- simply beyond the financial reach of an ordinary middle-class household.
The result is a peculiar urban economy.
The person who wants to follow every rule can become trapped in a maze of permissions and approvals, while those willing to “manage” the system can move faster.
As Salve put it, the honest builder can become entangled in the “barbed wire” of approvals, while people willing to circumvent the system find ways to construct.
Over time, illegality becomes normalised.
And once that happens, enforcement becomes exponentially more difficult.
But Who Is Really Responsible?
This is where Salve’s argument becomes particularly significant.
He does not suggest that every illegal structure should be protected merely because people are living in it.
He expressly distinguishes between the creator of the illegality and the ordinary occupant who purchased or rented a home within that system.
Consider two situations.
A developer deliberately acquires land illegally, converts land without permission and constructs multiple floors for profit.
Another situation involves a middle-class family that spends its life savings purchasing a flat without fully understanding the technical or planning violations attached to the property.
Treating both individuals in exactly the same manner may produce a superficially simple enforcement policy—but it does not necessarily produce justice.
The person who created the illegal structure and profited from it may deserve severe action.
The family living inside it may need protection, relocation or an opportunity for regularisation.
That is the distinction Salve wants policymakers and courts to recognise.
Also Read: Can America Reform the Supreme Court? Latest 5–4 Ruling Reignites Term Limits Debate
“All Illegal Buildings Must Go”—But What Happens Next?
There is an apparent contradiction in Salve’s position, but it is actually the core of his argument.
He says, in substance:
Illegal buildings cannot simply be allowed to remain forever.
Yet he simultaneously asks:
What happens to the people living inside them?
If a structure is dangerous, demolition may be unavoidable.
If a building is structurally unsafe and places students or residents at risk, public safety must come first.
But demolition cannot be the beginning and end of the government’s responsibility.
If hundreds or thousands of people are suddenly displaced, the government must answer the obvious question:
Where will they go?
That is why Salve rejects a purely demolition-driven approach.
The problem is not simply the existence of illegal buildings.
The problem is the creation of a city in which people have come to depend upon those buildings for shelter.
The Delhi PG Crisis Shows The Problem
The issue becomes even more immediate when one considers students and paying guests.
According to the discussion, municipal authorities had identified dozens of illegal or dilapidated PG accommodations within a short period. The concern was that demolition could affect hundreds of students.
This presents the government with a difficult choice.
Leave dangerous premises standing, and students may remain exposed to serious risks.
Demolish them immediately, and those same students may suddenly have nowhere affordable to live.
Neither option is satisfactory.
The real solution therefore has to come before demolition:
- identify the unsafe buildings,
- identify their occupants,
- arrange alternative accommodation,
- prosecute those responsible, and
- then take appropriate enforcement action.
That is fundamentally different from a knee-jerk demolition campaign.
The Question Of The Building Mafia
Salve’s criticism becomes particularly pointed when discussing the role of builders and intermediaries.
Why do illegal construction networks thrive?
His answer is straightforward: when legitimate construction becomes excessively difficult, expensive and bureaucratic, an informal system develops to fill the gap.
The consequences can be severe.
Illegal builders may:
- exploit government or agricultural land;
- construct without necessary permissions;
- exceed permitted floors;
- create overcrowded structures;
- ignore fire and safety requirements; and
- profit from desperate demand for affordable housing.
Salve’s position is unequivocal on this aspect.
Find the people who created the illegal structures. Prosecute them. If criminal conduct is established, punish them.
But punishing the builder should not automatically mean punishing every innocent resident who purchased a home within the resulting structure.
The Basement Question: When Illegality Becomes Dangerous
Delhi’s problem is not confined to residential buildings.
The discussion also points toward another familiar urban phenomenon—the use of basements for commercial activities despite restrictions and safety concerns.
Coaching centres and other establishments operating in unsuitable basements can create serious risks, particularly where fire exits, ventilation and emergency access are inadequate.
Here, the argument for enforcement becomes considerably stronger.
There is an important difference between a technical planning violation and a structure that creates an immediate threat to human life.
Safety must be non-negotiable.
But even safety enforcement needs planning.
If an establishment is closed today, the government must consider what happens to the students, workers, tenants and families who depended upon it tomorrow.
The Supreme Court Cannot Solve Delhi’s Planning Crisis Alone
This may be the most important institutional point emerging from Salve’s views.
- Courts can issue directions.
- Courts can enforce laws.
- Courts can order authorities to act.
But urban planning is ultimately a governmental and administrative function requiring expertise, resources and long-term policy.
Delhi’s illegal construction problem has developed over decades. It cannot realistically be solved through one judicial order.
Past interventions demonstrate the difficulty.
Large-scale demolition drives have occurred before, followed by legislative and policy responses that deferred the problem rather than permanently resolving it.
The cycle then repeats.
- Illegal construction grows.
- A tragedy occurs.
- Public anger rises.
- Authorities announce enforcement.
- Demolitions begin.
- Political and humanitarian concerns emerge.
- Regularisation or protection measures follow.
- The immediate crisis subsides.
- And the underlying problem returns.
This is the vicious cycle that needs to be broken.
The Yamuna Connection: Illegal Colonies Are Also an Infrastructure Problem
There is another dimension that cannot be ignored.
Unauthorised colonies are not merely about buildings. They also require:
- roads;
- drainage;
- sewage;
- water;
- electricity;
- waste management;
- public transport;
- schools;
- hospitals; and
- emergency services.
The discussion specifically connects unauthorised colonies with sewage entering the Yamuna, arguing that the environmental problem cannot be solved without addressing the infrastructure deficit in these settlements.
That makes the issue much larger than the legality of an individual building.
A city cannot be regularised one building at a time if the surrounding infrastructure remains unplanned.
Delhi Needs a Master Plan That Looks Forward
Salve’s proposed answer is essentially a planning exercise.
- First, determine the actual magnitude of the problem.
- Second, conduct a comprehensive survey of illegal buildings.
- Third, categorise them.
Some structures may be capable of being preserved or regularised.
Others may need modification.
Some may need partial demolition.
And buildings presenting serious safety risks may have to be removed altogether.
Modern technology, according to the argument, can make the identification process substantially faster than traditional surveys.
But identification is only the beginning.
Town planners and policymakers must then determine what Delhi should look like going forward.
That means creating a forward-looking master plan, rather than repeatedly announcing planning frameworks after the city has already outgrown them.
The Three-Floor Problem
One of the most revealing examples concerns additional floors.
Suppose a planning regime permits three floors.
Twenty years pass.
A family grows.
Children become adults.
Housing prices increase.
Demand for accommodation rises.
The owner adds another floor.
Technically, the additional construction may be illegal.
But the question remains:
Did the original planning system anticipate demographic growth and the future housing needs of the family?
If not, enforcement alone may not solve the problem.
Salve’s argument is that authorities need to create alternatives before demanding that citizens surrender additional floors or leave existing structures.
In other words:
Give people somewhere lawful to go before removing the unlawful accommodation they currently depend upon.
No Blanket Amnesty—But No Blanket Punishment Either
The debate is often presented as a choice between two extremes.
Either:
- “Demolish everything.”
- Or: “Regularise everything.”
Salve’s position suggests that neither extreme is workable.
There should be no automatic immunity for developers and powerful actors who deliberately created illegal structures.
At the same time, there should not be an indiscriminate policy that treats every occupant as a wrongdoer.
The solution requires classification.
Category One: Deliberate Commercial Illegality
Those who deliberately create illegal colonies, grab land or construct large-scale unauthorised structures for profit should face strong enforcement and, where warranted, criminal prosecution.
Category Two: Unsafe Structures
Buildings presenting genuine and serious risks to life may have to be evacuated and demolished.
Category Three: Curable Violations
Where violations can safely be rectified, structural or planning solutions should be explored.
Category Four: Ordinary Residents
Middle-class and lower-middle-class families who purchased or occupy homes because affordable lawful alternatives were unavailable should not automatically be treated as the principal wrongdoers.
This approach is far more complicated than simply sending demolition teams.
But the problem itself is complicated.
“You Can’t Throw People Out on the Street”
The most memorable element of Salve’s argument is ultimately not about architecture.
It is about human dignity.
A government cannot create—or permit—the conditions in which citizens are pushed toward illegal housing and then, decades later, suddenly declare that the entire system is their fault.
That does not mean illegality should become a permanent defence.
It means enforcement must be accompanied by responsibility.
- If a building is unsafe, people must be moved.
- If they are moved, alternative accommodation must be considered.
- If the structure was created through fraud or corruption, the responsible actors must be investigated.
- If municipal failures contributed to the problem, institutional accountability must follow.
- And if the city needs new housing rules, those rules must reflect the Delhi that actually exists—not an imaginary Delhi on a planning document.
The Citizens Must Be Part of the Solution
Another important theme in Salve’s remarks is that Delhi cannot be transformed through a permanent confrontation between the state and its residents.
Citizens have to be brought into the process.
If residents understand why a particular building cannot remain, and if they are offered a credible alternative, enforcement becomes more sustainable.
But if people are simply told:
“Your home is illegal. Leave.”
Without an alternative, resistance is inevitable.
Salve therefore stresses that citizens must be taken along in the process.
This is not merely a political consideration.
It is also a practical one.
A city of millions cannot be reorganised successfully through coercion alone.
The Real Solution: A Four-Stage Strategy
The discussion points toward a broad framework that could be described as a four-stage approach.
1. Identify
Conduct a technology-enabled survey of Delhi’s unauthorised and unsafe structures.
2. Classify
Separate dangerous buildings, curable violations, minor violations, large-scale commercial illegality and ordinary residential occupation.
3. Provide Alternatives
Before displacement, create adequate housing and accommodation for people who genuinely need it.
4. Enforce
Take firm action against dangerous structures and those who deliberately created illegal construction for profit.
This would transform demolition from a reactive exercise into part of a broader urban policy.
The Political Difficulty
There is, however, one final obstacle.
Urban planning decisions are politically difficult.
Removing illegal floors, relocating residents, changing land-use patterns and restricting entrenched interests can create enormous political resistance.
Salve’s discussion recognises that political consensus can be difficult to achieve, particularly in a deeply polarised environment. Yet he also suggests that a major crisis can sometimes generate public support for difficult reforms.
Ultimately, somebody has to make the difficult decisions.
And those decisions may not always be politically popular.
The Bigger Legal Question
The Delhi illegal-construction controversy therefore raises a much larger question than:
“Should illegal buildings be demolished?”
The real question is:
How should a constitutional democracy enforce urban planning laws while protecting citizens who have become dependent upon a deeply flawed housing system?
There is no simple answer.
The law cannot be ignored.
Public safety cannot be compromised.
Illegal builders cannot be allowed to profit indefinitely.
But neither can ordinary families and students simply become collateral damage of decades of administrative failure.
The judiciary has an important role in ensuring that authorities comply with the law.
The government has the responsibility to design and implement policy.
Town planners must design a realistic city.
Municipal authorities must enforce building and safety standards.
And citizens must also recognise that construction laws exist for reasons—including safety and sustainable urban development.
Conclusion: Delhi Needs Enforcement With Humanity
Harish Salve’s central message is perhaps best understood not as an argument against demolition, but as an argument against thoughtless demolition.
Unsafe buildings must be dealt with.
Illegal commercial construction cannot be allowed to flourish.
Builders who deliberately violate the law should face consequences.
But an ordinary resident who has invested his life’s savings in a home cannot simply be treated as though he were the architect of Delhi’s decades-old planning failures.
The solution lies somewhere between law and reality.
Delhi needs a comprehensive survey, a realistic master plan, scientific classification of illegal structures, alternative accommodation, infrastructure development and firm action against those responsible for deliberate illegality.
Above all, it needs a policy that understands one basic truth:
A building may be illegal. But the human beings living inside it still have rights.
And that is why the warning remains so powerful:
You can enforce the law—but you cannot simply throw people onto the street.
Author
Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can the Supreme Court Order Demolition of Illegal Buildings in Delhi?
Yes, the Supreme Court can issue directions concerning illegal and unsafe construction, but the broader issue involves existing laws, government policies, urban planning and the circumstances of individual buildings. The article argues that demolition should not be approached as a blanket solution without considering the residents affected.
2. What Will Happen to People Living in Illegal Buildings in Delhi if They Are Demolished?
Residents of illegal buildings, particularly middle-class and lower-middle-class families and students, may face serious displacement. The article argues that authorities should provide alternative accommodation and rehabilitation options before removing people from unsafe or unauthorised buildings.
3. Should Illegal Buildings in Delhi Be Demolished or Regularised?
There should not necessarily be a single solution for every illegal building. Dangerous structures may require demolition, while buildings with curable planning violations may potentially be examined for rectification or regularisation. The article advocates a scientific survey and classification of illegal buildings before taking action.
4. Who Should Be Held Responsible for Illegal Construction in Delhi?
The article distinguishes between ordinary residents and those who deliberately create illegal construction for profit. Builders, developers and other persons responsible for unauthorised colonies, illegal land conversion or excessive construction should face appropriate legal action, while innocent occupants should not automatically be treated as the principal wrongdoers.
5. What Is the Long-Term Solution to Delhi’s Illegal Construction and Unauthorised Colonies Problem?
Delhi needs a forward-looking master plan, a comprehensive survey of illegal buildings, proper urban planning, affordable housing, infrastructure development, alternative accommodation and strict enforcement against illegal builders. The problem cannot be solved through demolition alone because illegal colonies are also connected with roads, sewage, sanitation and other essential infrastructure.
Key Takeaways: Delhi’s Illegal Buildings and Residents’ Rights
Delhi’s illegal construction crisis is a housing and governance problem, not merely a demolition issue. Decades of unauthorised development have created a complex situation involving housing, urban planning, infrastructure and public safety.
Harish Salve’s central argument is that illegal buildings cannot be treated uniformly. Dangerous and unsafe structures may require demolition, but ordinary residents who occupy unauthorised buildings because affordable legal housing was unavailable should not simply be thrown onto the streets.
The Supreme Court can enforce the law, but Delhi’s illegal construction problem requires a broader government-led solution. Urban planning, rehabilitation, infrastructure and long-term housing policy cannot be resolved through court orders alone.
Illegal builders and construction mafias must face strict legal action. Those who deliberately construct unauthorised colonies, misuse land or build beyond permitted limits should be identified, prosecuted and punished where the law permits.
Public safety must remain the first priority. Unsafe illegal buildings, including dangerous PGs and structures housing students, cannot be allowed to expose residents to avoidable risks. However, authorities must also plan alternative accommodation for displaced occupants.
Delhi needs a comprehensive survey of illegal buildings and unauthorised colonies. Modern technology can help identify and classify structures so authorities can determine which buildings must be demolished, which can be preserved and which violations can potentially be rectified.
A forward-looking Delhi Master Plan is essential. Urban planning must anticipate population growth, housing demand, road capacity, sanitation and infrastructure instead of repeatedly responding after unauthorised construction has already spread.
Illegal colonies are also an infrastructure and environmental challenge. Sewage, sanitation, roads, drainage and other basic services must form part of any long-term solution to Delhi’s unauthorised settlements.
Regularisation and demolition should not be blanket policies. Each structure should be assessed according to its safety, planning violation, environmental impact, purpose and the circumstances of the people living there.
The ultimate principle is enforcement with humanity. Delhi needs a balance between strict action against deliberate illegal construction, protection of public safety, affordable housing, rehabilitation of residents and realistic urban planning. As the article emphasises, “You can enforce the law—but you cannot simply throw people onto the street.”
Key Issues at a Glance
| Issue | Central Concern |
|---|---|
| Illegal Construction | Deliberate violations should face appropriate legal action. |
| Public Safety | Unsafe buildings must be dealt with to protect residents. |
| Residents’ Rights | Ordinary occupants should not simply be thrown onto the streets. |
| Rehabilitation | Alternative accommodation should be considered for displaced occupants. |
| Urban Planning | Delhi needs a realistic and forward-looking master plan. |
| Infrastructure | Roads, sewage, sanitation and drainage must form part of the solution. |
| Regularisation | Buildings with curable violations may potentially be examined for rectification or regularisation. |
| Enforcement | Strict action should focus on deliberate illegal construction and those responsible for it. |
Disclaimer
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views attributed to Harish Salve are presented for discussion and do not represent the views of any court or government authority. The law may change, so readers should seek professional legal advice before acting.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/ NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
