Top court cracks down on bulldozer justice by states
The ruling comes amid rising public concern over demolitions allegedly targeting specific groups and communities without following due process
Describing a house as “an embodiment of the collective hopes of a family or individuals’ stability and security”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down nationwide guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions by state authorities, marking a significant moment in the battle against what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice”-- the practice of razing the properties of people accused of crimes, and, sometimes, of their families, often using earthmovers or bulldozers, without following due process.
The ruling by a bench comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan, and authored by the former, quoted Hindi poet Pradeep (famous for authoring Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon) -- “To have one’s own home, one’s own courtyard – this dream lives in every heart. It’s a longing that never fades, to never lose the dream of a home” -- as it underlined the right to shelter as a fundamental part of the Indian Constitution, mandating strict procedural safeguards and highlighting that the executive cannot bypass the judicial process by demolishing properties linked to people alleged to have committed a crime.
“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,” stated the judgment, warning that arbitrary executive actions would be subject to judicial scrutiny and penalties.
The ruling comes amid rising public concern over demolitions allegedly targeting specific groups and communities without following due process.
“When a particular structure is chosen for demolition, and the rest of the similarly situated structures are not even being touched, mala fide may loom large,” it observed. This selective targeting, the bench maintained, could serve as an unconstitutional penalty rather than a legal enforcement of municipal codes.
By clarifying that the court directives will not apply to unauthorised constructions on public lands, such as roads, footpaths, and water bodies, or to demolitions ordered by a court of law, the Supreme Court sought to strike a balance between enforcing land use laws and safeguarding civil rights, while making it clear that the State must respect citizens’ constitutional protections.
So-called bulldozer justice, often without following due process, has become a popular tool for administrations across the country to convey the image of being decisive or pander to vigilante sentiments among the public in the wake of heinous crimes.
In a 95-page judgment authored by justice Gavai, the court addressed serious concerns about the misuse of State power, sharply criticising instances where authorities demolish homes or properties linked to individuals facing criminal accusations or even convicted of crimes, without respecting the procedural safeguards of due process. Such practices, the court remarked, fundamentally violate the “rule of law” and the principle of “separation of powers”.
“It would be wholly impermissible in our constitutional setup for the executive to replace the judiciary in performing its core functions. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential or commercial property,” asserted the judgment.
Even in cases where individuals chose not to contest the demolition order, the court held that sufficient time must be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. “It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period,” it said.
To ensure fairness and prevent abuse, the court introduced binding directives for future demolitions. No demolition, it ruled, should be carried out without prior notice. This show-cause notice must give at least 15 days for the occupant to respond, and it must be served through registered post, as well as affixed prominently on the structure in question. The court required the notice to specify the nature of the alleged violation, grounds for the demolition, and a list of documents required in defence.
In addition, each affected party is to receive an opportunity for a personal hearing with the designated authority before any final demolition order. Furthermore, any demolition order, once finalised, must be held for an additional 15 days to allow the occupant to challenge the decision or arrange to vacate. The court stipulated that these safeguards are to be followed “with complete transparency” and directed that demolition proceedings be video-recorded and publicly documented via a municipal portal.
“Every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated digital portal, within three months from today wherein details regarding service/pasting of the notice, the reply, the show cause notice and the order passed thereon would be available,” ordered the bench, while setting down the matter after four weeks to monitor compliance.
The ruling also imposed strict accountability measures, mandating that district magistrates 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, held the judgment, adding that compensation for wrongful demolitions may be directly recovered from the erring officials.
Even as the judgment clarified that its directives would not apply to unauthorised constructions on public lands, such as roads, footpaths, and water bodies or to demolitions ordered by a court of law, the top court was emphatic that demolitions, when used as a form of punishment for alleged crimes, undermine constitutional protections and violate due process.
The court order came in response to a batch of petitions challenging the recent surge in demolitions targeting properties linked to individuals accused of crimes. Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, MR Shamshad, Sanjay Hegde, CU Singh, Nitya Ramakrishnan, along with advocates Prashant Bhushan and Fauzia Shakil appeared for various petitioners in the matter. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta represented the Centre and Uttar Pradesh, the state which pioneered the concept of bulldozer justice.
Executive powers curbed“It would be wholly impermissible in our constitutional setup for the executive to replace the judiciary in performing its core functions,” asserted the court, adding that the executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential or commercial property.”This, the judgment noted, is “contrary to the rule of law,” and warned that arbitrary executive actions would be subject to judicial scrutiny and penalties.
The court also invoked the doctrine of public trust, highlighting that executive power is exercised “as a trustee of the citizens,” thereby mandating that such power be used responsibly, transparently, and with accountability. Justice Gavai declared that “if the executive, in an arbitrary manner, demolishes the houses of citizens solely because they are accused of a crime, it acts contrary to the principles of the rule of law.” Any executive action lacking due process, the court stated, would be “an abuse of process of law” and would “strike at the heart of constitutional democracy.”
Condemnation of collective punishmentThe judgment specifically criticised the practice of demolishing a family’s home merely because a member of the family was involved in a criminal case. “Even if a house belongs to an accused or convict, it cannot be demolished without following due process,” held the bench.
Condemning such actions as “collective punishment,” the court added that “our constitutional scheme and criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same.”
Accountability for violationsIn its ruling, the court also introduced measures to hold officials accountable for any demolition that violates these guidelines. If found guilty of executing unlawful demolitions, officials could face contempt proceedings and be personally liable for restitution costs, including compensation for damages to the affected families.
The judgment stressed that even the incarcerated, whether accused or convicted, “retain certain rights as any other citizen,” including the right to dignity and protection from inhumane treatment. The court warned: “The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building without adherence to due process reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right.’ In our Constitution, such high-handed actions have no place.”
The bench ordered the Supreme Court registrar directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the chief secretaries of all the states and Union territories and the registrar generals of all high courts. “All state governments shall issue circulars to all the district magistrates and local authorities intimating them about the directions issued by this Court,” it directed.