[Bulldozer Justice Row] ‘Executive Cannot Replace The Judiciary And Law Should Not Prejudge….’: Supreme Court

By Minakshi Bindhani

13 November 2024, 1:03 PM13 November 2024, 1:03 PM

3 minutes, 57 seconds Read

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Court declared that demolishing a person’s home solely because they are accused of a crime violates the separation of powers principle.

[Bulldozer Justice Row] 'Executive Cannot Replace The Judiciary And Law Should Not Prejudge....': Supreme Court — [Bulldozer Justice Row] ‘Executive Cannot Replace The Judiciary And Law Should Not Prejudge….’: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: In a ruling on Wednesday(13th Nov), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and the law should not prejudge an accused’s guilt, notably in response to petitions against “bulldozer actions” in which the properties of alleged offenders are demolished by state authorities.

The Court declared that demolishing a person’s home solely because they are accused of a crime violates the separation of powers principle.

The verdict, delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, outlined pan-India guidelines to govern demolitions of unauthorized structures.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the States of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh, Sanjay Hegde, MR Shamshad, and Advocates Nizam Pasha and Anas Tanwir appeared on behalf of the affected parties.

Advocate Vrinda Grover represented the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing.

Recently, a different bench of the Supreme Court, led by the former Chief Justice of India, ruled that bulldozer justice has no place in a society governed by the rule of law.

Numerous petitions filed with the Court had claimed that some state authorities demolished properties without sufficient notice.

Key Observations on “Bulldozer Justice” by the Supreme Court

Public officials who overstep legal boundaries must be held accountable. Neither the State nor its officials have the authority to enact arbitrary, excessive measures. When the rights of an accused or convict are infringed by the State through arbitrary actions, there must be restitution.
Any executive excesses must face the law’s strictest response, as abuse of power is fundamentally opposed to our constitutional values and cannot be tolerated by the judiciary.
The Executive does not have the authority to declare guilt. Demolishing a person’s property based solely on allegations undermines the Rule of Law, as it equates accusation with judgment.
Officers who misuse their power or act arbitrarily or with malintent cannot be exempt from accountability.
When one specific structure is targeted for demolition, while similar properties remain untouched, the intent may appear punitive rather than legal. The right to shelter, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, is a fundamental right, and displacing individuals through demolition should only be considered as a last resort.
For most citizens, building a home is a result of years of hard work and embodies their hopes for security and a stable future. Authorities must justify that demolition is truly necessary.
If only one individual in a household is accused of a crime, the question arises whether the entire home can justifiably be demolished, impacting residents unrelated to the alleged offense. Witnessing women and children forced onto the streets is disturbing.
However, these directives do not apply to unauthorized constructions on public land or cases where demolition has been ordered by a court.
Demolition should not proceed without a prior show-cause notice, either within the time frame set by local laws or within 15 days of service, whichever is longer.
Notice must be served to the property owner by registered post and posted visibly on the structure. It should outline the nature of the unauthorized construction, specific violations, and reasons for demolition.
The designated authority must provide the accused with a personal hearing, document the meeting, and include the notice’s contentions in the final order.
Demolition proceedings must be recorded on video, and the demolition report should be accessible on a digital portal.
Any breach of these directions will lead to contempt proceedings, with responsible officers liable for restitution and possibly damages.
If a home is demolished solely because an individual is accused or convicted without lawful process, this is “totally unconstitutional” for multiple reasons.
The sight of a bulldozer reducing a home to rubble, when authorities have disregarded due process and natural justice, is a reminder of a reality where might prevails over law.
The Court noted that its order does not shield unauthorized constructions on public lands or those already ordered for demolition by a court.
However, it condemned “glorification” of bulldozer actions and clarified that demolitions should not be carried out for “extraneous reasons.”
An interim order issued by Justice Gavai’s bench on September 17 had stayed demolitions nationwide, requiring the Court’s permission for further actions.