‘Bulldozer justice’ curbed: SC issues nationwide rules to protect rights

A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan held that demolitions cannot be used as punitive measures against those accused or convicted of crimes

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set down comprehensive guidelines against arbitrary demolitions, underscoring that the rule of law and due process must be strictly adhered to. The court’s judgment highlighted the dangers of what it described as “bulldozer justice,” declaring that the executive cannot act as both judge and executor by demolishing the properties of those involved in criminal cases.

The court directed that no property may be demolished without prior written notice. (HT PHOTO)

A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan held that demolitions cannot be used as punitive measures against those accused or convicted of crimes, emphasising that shelter is a fundamental right and must not be taken away without following due process.

“Rule of law mandates against arbitrary action,” said Justice Gavai while reading out the operative part of the judgment. “Public trust and accountability in government depend on ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected, and their properties are secure from capricious executive actions.” He added that the state cannot assume the judiciary’s role by pre-emptively punishing accused individuals without legal proceedings.

Exercising its power under Article 142, the court outlined mandatory procedural safeguards to be observed nationwide, with specific rules for all states and Union territories to ensure transparency and accountability.

The court directed that no property may be demolished without prior written notice, outlining the alleged violations and providing owners with at least 15 days to respond. Notices must also be served by registered post and displayed on the structure in question, detailing the grounds for demolition and offering a fair window to contest.

The court said the affected property owners must be granted a personal hearing before demolition is undertaken. It added that officials are required to issue a “speaking order” explaining the decision, and all demolitions are to be recorded on video, ensuring evidence of compliance with the court’s guidelines.

The court mandated district magistrates to oversee compliance and ensure that only legitimate demolitions proceed. “Officials who carry out unauthorised demolitions will face disciplinary action, potential contempt charges, and monetary penalties,” said Justice Gavai. He added that compensation for wrongful demolitions may be directly recovered from the erring officials.

The ruling comes amid rising public concern over demolitions allegedly targeting specific groups. The court noted reports of selective demolitions—where homes and businesses of accused individuals are destroyed while similar violations in the same area go untouched. Justice Gavai condemned these selective practices, declaring them “wholly illegal” and stressing that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.

The court clarified that these guidelines do not apply to unauthorised constructions on public lands, such as roads, water bodies, forested areas, or demolitions ordered by a court. Nonetheless, the bench stressed that any demolition carried out by the state must prioritise public interest and avoid capricious targeting.

Underscoring that while unauthorised constructions cannot be condoned, the court said demolitions must follow a fair process, irrespective of the accused’s background or community.

Justice Gavai reaffirmed that individuals accused or convicted of crimes retain their constitutional rights. “The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty and demolish their home; such actions strike at the heart of the rule of law,” he said.

The court on September 17 issued an interim order halting demolitions without judicial oversight, highlighting the need for a balance between law enforcement and constitutional rights. It had directed that no demolition, including those linked to criminal accusations, should occur without the court’s explicit permission. The interim order did not apply to unauthorised constructions on public roads, footpaths, or water bodies.

The ruling on Wednesday came on a clutch of petitions that challenged demolitions linked to criminal accusations.

While reserving the judgment on October 1, the bench indicated that the directions will ensure that proper legal procedures, including prior notice through registered post and a reasonable window for contesting orders, are followed before a demolition. The court also indicated it may require mandatory videography of demolitions and hold officers accountable by mandating recovery of compensation for unjust demolitions.