E-Paper
Top court strengthens rule of law, reiterates separation of powers
The court explained that the rule of law ensures that all actions by the state must be governed by legal principles, not discretionary decisions
The Supreme Court verdict establishing safeguards against arbitrary demolitions serves as a powerful statement against the misuse of executive authority, particularly in instances of what has been termed “bulldozer justice”.
This judgment is a landmark in reinforcing the principles that define a democratic State, particularly the rule of law and separation of powers, which are central to a functioning, equitable legal system. It is a response to the recent trend of demolishing properties in a seemingly arbitrary manner without adequate procedural safeguards, often under the pretext of maintaining public order. The court’s ruling emphasises the importance of lawful procedure, judicial oversight and constitutional protections to ensure that no individual’s rights are trampled under the weight of executive expediency.
In issuing this ruling, the bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan underscored the rule of law as the cornerstone of a democratic society, reminding government authorities that they are bound by established laws and must be held accountable for any overreach. The court also reaffirmed the doctrine of separation of powers, making clear that each branch of government must operate within its designated boundaries. Only the judiciary, the court asserted, has the authority to judge and impose penalties, thereby preventing the executive from acting as both judge and executioner by demolishing properties of those involved in criminal cases.
The top court observations on the rule of law, separation of powers and government accountability carry important implications for democratic governance, making it imperative to delve into the judgment’s key points.
Rule of law and separation of powersThe judgment underscored the inviolable nature of the rule of law, which asserts that “no one is above the law of the land; that everybody is equal before the law”. Cautioning that arbitrariness by officials is fundamentally opposed to the rule of law, the court stated that “no one can be punished or made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land”.
The court explained that the rule of law ensures that all actions by the state must be governed by legal principles, not discretionary decisions. The judgment noted that rule of law “must be just and fair and protect the human rights and dignity of all members of society”, and serves the essential purpose of “preventing the abuse of power”. It asserted that arbitrary executive actions erode public confidence in the justice system and lead to “an environment where the rule of law is compromised by lawlessness”.
Quoting earlier decisions that have held the rule of law as part of the Constitution’s basic structure, the court stressed that executive actions that bypass judicial process effectively undermine democratic governance. “The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core functions,” held the court, adding that arbitrary demolitions without judicial oversight are impermissible.
“If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes the houses of citizens only on the grounds that they are accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of ‘rule of law’. If the executive acts as a judge and inflicts penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of ‘separation of powers’...”it declared.
Doctrine of public trust and public accountabilityThe judgment highlighted the concept of public trust as a fundamental expectation in a democratic society. In this view, the executive branch, which holds authority on behalf of the public, is bound by a duty to act as a “trustee” of the citizens. This doctrine has traditionally been applied in environmental cases, where the government is considered a custodian of natural resources for public benefit. However, the court extended this principle to executive actions more broadly, affirming that all state power exercised by public servants or officials must be in accordance with the public’s trust.
Emphasising that when the executive transgresses its power, especially in bypassing judicial authority and directly imposing punitive measures such as demolition, the court said, it breaches the doctrine of public trust.
The judgment cited previous decisions, including Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2011), pointing out that public officials must faithfully discharge their duties in a manner that promotes the public good and avoids arbitrary, harmful actions. Additionally, it referenced the Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India (2005), which held that when the State’s actions cause harm, they are accountable under public law.
A critical part of the judgment was the stance that arbitrary demolition of property, especially when linked to mere accusations of criminal conduct, is an unacceptable form of punishment that violates public trust. Such acts, the court warned, effectively turn the executive into judge and jury, usurping judicial authority. The court asserted that public officials who engage in these actions should be held accountable, reinforcing that the judiciary would not permit such “high-handed actions” to go unchecked.
To prevent such executive arbitrariness, the bench called for binding directives aimed at increasing transparency and fairness in state actions, while reinforcing accountability mechanisms to deter misuse of power.
Rights of accused and principles of criminal lawThe judgment underlined that individuals accused or even convicted of crime retain specific rights under the Constitution that are intrinsic to their dignity and must be protected against any inhuman or arbitrary treatment. Holding that any punishment meted out must be legally sanctioned and cannot be imposed without due process, it noted that arbitrary measures, such as the extrajudicial demolition of a property, are “wholly unconstitutional”.
The court highlighted past judgments, such as Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration (1978), which underscored the protection of prisoner rights against state excesses, including the prohibition of inhumane practices like iron fetters or solitary confinement. Similarly, in Charles Sobraj Vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar (1978), it was held that prisoners maintain their rights as citizens, limited only by the necessities of confinement.
Central to the court’s analysis is the presumption of innocence, a bedrock of the criminal justice system. This principle means that an accused individual is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Stressing that no State authority can unilaterally judge or punish an individual based on mere allegations, it held that such punitive actions, including property demolition in response to an accusation, circumvent judicial processes and violate the principles of fairness, making them impermissible under the Constitution.
The judgment further stressed that due process and a fair trial are non-negotiable safeguards in the criminal justice system. The legal procedures associated with a fair trial are essential for upholding the rule of law and protecting individual liberties, ensuring that the principles of natural justice are observed, it said.
The court condemned extrajudicial demolitions in a response to what it described as “chilling” visuals of bulldozers destroying property without adherence to legal procedures. Such acts, it warned, erode the rule of law, evoking an environment where “might is right”. The court held that even for individuals convicted of heinous crimes, the punishment cannot include property demolition without statutory procedures and safeguards, reinforcing that any punitive measures must always comply with due process.
Right to shelter and collective punishment The court underscored the importance of the right to shelter, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, declaring that any action depriving individuals of their home violates their fundamental right to life. “A house... gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available,” noted the judgment.
The court raised a critical concern about the impact of demolitions on innocent family members, such as spouses, children, and parents who live in or co-own the property with an accused individual. Punishing these individuals by destroying their home, despite having no connection to any alleged crime, violates the principles of fairness and individual accountability, it held.
In Chameli Singh Vs State of UP (1996), the top court recognised that the right to shelter is a fundamental part of the right to life, and the court referenced this to add that removing innocent individuals from their homes infringes upon this right and is incompatible with the rule of law.
According to the court, demolitions solely targeting accused individuals’ properties without addressing other unauthorised structures in the vicinity suggest a discriminatory and punitive motive, especially when carried out immediately following criminal accusations.
The court further emphasised the importance of proportionality, a principle upheld in cases such as Modern Dental College (2016), KS Puttaswamy (2017), and Vivek Narayan Sharma (2023). Before taking the drastic measure of demolition, authorities must consider less intrusive options, such as partial demolition or compounding (i.e., regularising) the structure if permissible. Only when these alternatives are unavailable and demolition is the only viable option should it be pursued, said the court.
The court denounced the notion of collective punishment -- holding an entire family or multiple families accountable for the alleged or proven misconduct of a single individual. This principle violates both the constitutional scheme and criminal jurisprudence, where each individual’s guilt or innocence must be determined separately. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that no individual or family should suffer punitive measures, such as the demolition of their home, based solely on association with an accused person.
The apex court’s stance in protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law reflects a commitment to constitutional values and the principles of fairness. By condemning collective punishment, the court emphasises that no individual or family should bear the consequences of an alleged crime merely by association. The ruling not only strengthens the right to shelter and underscores the presumption of innocence but also serves as a clear directive for the executive to act within legal boundaries, respecting both human dignity and judicial process. To ensure adherence, the court has expressed its intention to monitor compliance closely in order to prevent any misuse of power by State authorities and to hold to account those who engage in arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
