State Duty to Continuously Prevent, Remove, or Regularize Unauthorized Religious Structures on Public Land

This Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was initiated by the Gujarat High Court in 2006 regarding the encroachment of public roads by illegal religious structures

The High Court’s initial order dated 02.05.2006 was challenged before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8519 of 2006

On 31.01.2018, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the respective High Courts to supervise and ensure the implementation of its prior directions dated 07.12.2009 and 16.02.2010 concerning the removal, relocation, or regularization of such structures

Since 2019, the Home Department of Gujarat has filed periodic affidavits detailing actions taken across 34 districts and 8 municipal corporations

The court applied the directives of the Supreme Court of India issued in Union of India v. State of Gujarat Ors. (orders dated 07.12.2009 and 16.02.2010), which mandated that no unauthorized construction in the name of a Temple, Church, Mosque, or Gurudwara be permitted on public streets, parks, or places

The rule established that existing unauthorized structures must be reviewed on a case-to-case basis for removal, relocation, or regularization according to a formulated State policy

The High Courts were granted jurisdiction to oversee implementation and proceed in contempt if necessary

The Court perused the latest affidavit dated 07.07.2026 filed by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, which indicated that between 01.03.2026 and 30.06.2026, substantial progress was made in removing and relocating structures following fresh notices

The Court observed that it had monitored the case for approximately 20 years and found "substantial compliances" with both its own orders and the Supreme Court’s mandates

The Court reasoned that since the State formally acknowledged that the removal of unauthorized religious structures is a "continuous and ongoing process" and provided a written undertaking to continue these efforts, active judicial supervision of the PIL could be concluded subject to periodic reporting

The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to ensure strict adherence to the Supreme Court's orders in "true letter and spirit"

The Court specifically ordered the Principal Secretary to authorize a subordinate officer to compile six-monthly progress reports, which must be submitted to the Court through the Registrar General on an ongoing basis