 "Supreme Court slams 'bulldozer justice': Key takeaways from the verdict")
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on “bulldozer justice” by some state authorities, saying demolishing the properties of an accused or convict without following due process is “unconstitutional”. The top court also laid down guidelines for demolition to ensure state laws are not misused.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan on Wednesday (November 13) warned officials engaged in such “high-handed actions” will be held accountable. “If a property is demolished only because [a] person is accused, it is wholly unconstitutional. The executive cannot determine who is guilty and cannot become a judge to decide if he is guilty or not and such an act will be transgressions of limits. The chilling side of bulldozer reminds that constitutional values and ethos do not allow such abuse of power,” the apex court said.
The Supreme Court was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes.
Here are the main takeaways from the Supreme Court’s ruling on bulldozer action.
Violation of right to shelter
The Supreme Court observed that the demolition of people’s properties by the government “only on the ground that they are accused of a crime” violated the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. “Right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their hands, their heads in our considered view would be wholly unconstitutional…”.
The top court noted that razing the house of an accused person becomes a “collective punishment” for the family members residing at the property. “Construction of a house is an aspect of socio-economic aspirations and is just not a property but symbolises years of struggle and it gives a sense of dignity and if this right is taken away, then the authority has to satisfy that such a measure was the only last resort available,” the top court said, as per Bar and Bench.
“The settled principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and if the structure is demolished, then it is collective punishment on all family members which cannot be allowed under the Constitution,” the court added.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsSending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 13) held that the executive cannot demolish the houses of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 13, 2024
Read more: https://t.co/XYnURWnMyG… pic.twitter.com/TQGXpoccim
Selective demolition
The bench also hit out at selective demolition, saying it gives a presumption the action was mala fide.
“When a structure is suddenly selected for demolition while others remain, then mala fide is writ large and presumption could be drawn that action was not to bring down the illegal structure but to penalise the person before a court of law does so,” the top Court ruled.
Separation of powers
The Supreme Court said the executive cannot demolish an accused’s property without following due process.
The bench ruled that “the chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’. In our Constitution, which rests on the foundation of ‘the rule of law’, such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place.”
Terming such actions “excesses”, the court said they have to be dealt with the “heavy hand of the law”. “Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law.”
The court also underlined that if “the executive acts as a judge and inflicts penalty of demolition on the citizen on the ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of separation of powers”.
SC’s guidelines for demolition
The Supreme Court has formulated pan-India guidelines to curb the illegal demolition of properties. Exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench issued directions that must be followed before such actions.
The provision allows the apex court to pass such decree or make such order as is “necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”
The apex court said that even after an order for demolition has been passed, the affected party should be given time to appeal the order.
“Even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children, and young persons dragged to the streets overnight,” the court added.
The bench said demolition cannot be carried out without show cause notice. The notice will be sent via the registered post to the building owner and posted outside the structure that has to be demolished. The person will have 15 days or the time provided in local civic laws, whichever is later, to respond.
“The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice,” the court said.
The notice will mention details such as the nature of unauthorised construction, the specific violation and the grounds for demolition. It should also inform of the date of a personal hearing for the affected party and before which authority it is fixed.
To prevent backdating, the court directed that “as soon as show cause notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of the collector, district magistrate of the district digitally by email and an auto generated reply acknowledging receipt of the mail could also be issued from the office of the collector, system magistrate. The collector system magistrate shall designate a nodal officer and also assign an email address and communicate the same to all the municipal and other authority in charge of building regulations and demolitions within one month from today.”
The apex court also called for setting up a designated digital portal to provide details of such notices and orders. Demolition proceedings have to be videographed and the report has to be submitted to the concerned municipal commissioner.
The bench said the final order should mention why the “extreme step” of demolition is the only option and other options like compounding and demolishing a part of the property are not possible.
However, the court clarified “that these directions will not be applicable if there is any unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line, or any river body or water body, and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by the court of law.”
The top court warned that if these rules were flouted, the officials responsible would be held liable for contempt of the court. They will be liable for restitution of the demolished property at their own cost and also pay compensation.
The judgement noted that “even the accused or the convicts have certain rights and safeguards in the form of constitutional provisions and criminal law”.
With inputs from agencies
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
