A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan issued guidelines under Article 142 of the Constitution, using the Court’s powers to ensure justice.
![[Bulldozer Justice] "Officials To Pay From Salary": SC Lays Down Pan India Guidelines On Demolition Of Properties](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-2024-08-31T101346.318.png?resize=820%2C492&ssl=1)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today (13th Nov) ruled that demolishing buildings or homes solely because they are owned or occupied by an accused person is illegal.
A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan issued guidelines under Article 142 of the Constitution, using the Court’s powers to ensure justice.
The bulldozer action judgment arises from multiple writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. These petitions were brought forward by citizens challenging the demolition of their residential and commercial properties. They claimed these actions were taken without following due process and were punitive responses to allegations of criminal involvement
Key Observations on “Bulldozer Justice” by the Supreme Court
Rule of Law:
The judgment reaffirms the rule of law as a cornerstone of democratic governance, where no person can be punished or have their property taken without a clear breach of law, established through legal channels. This principle insists that the government must act within the bounds of established laws, and it is the judiciary’s role to enforce these principles.
Justice Gavai noted that every family dreams of having a home, and the fundamental issue before the Court was whether the Executive should be permitted to take away someone’s shelter.
“The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic government… the issue relates to fairness in the criminal justice system, which mandates that legal process should not prejudge guilt of accused,” the bench said.
Rights of the Accused:
Individuals accused of crimes maintain fundamental rights under the Constitution, including the presumption of innocence. This principle argues that penalties like property demolition without conviction violate constitutional protections.
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India declared that demolishing the homes of individuals accused or convicted of crimes is unlawful.
The Court stressed,
“Even if a person is accused or found guilty, it does not justify the destruction of their home.”
Emphasizing the rule of law, the Court stated that bulldozer actions must be free of bias and discrimination.
It added,
“Wrongful demolitions warrant compensation and that officials responsible should not be shielded from accountability.”
The Court questioned the impact on families, asking,
“If the accused is just one person, why should the entire family be punished by losing their home?”
This, the Court noted, disregards legal principles intended to protect citizens. Previously, the Court remarked that a home is more than a physical structure, calling it “a dream and a sanctuary.”
It condemned the misuse of government power, emphasizing that,
“The punishment for a crime does not extend to demolishing a home. No one’s home should be destroyed solely because they are accused.”
Doctrine of Public Trust and Accountability:
Public officers hold their powers in trust for citizens and must exercise them fairly. Any action that violates the principles of fairness or accountability breaches this trust. Public accountability becomes especially crucial when officials’ actions affect basic rights, such as shelter.
The Supreme Court issued directives in response to multiple petitions challenging the practice of Central and State governments using bulldozers to demolish the homes or businesses of individuals accused in criminal cases as a form of extrajudicial punishment.
Previously, the Bench had imposed a temporary ban on authorities from demolishing the properties of individuals suspected of crimes without obtaining prior Court approval.
“We have considered the rights guaranteed under the Constitution that provide protection to individuals from arbitrary State action. The rule of law provides a framework to make sure individuals know property will not be taken away arbitrarily,” it added.
Separation of Powers:
The judgment underscores that executive authorities cannot assume judicial powers by punishing individuals through demolitions without court orders. Each branch of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—has distinct functions, and violating this balance jeopardizes democratic structures. The judiciary, therefore, holds the power to check such executive actions that may cross legal boundaries.
On the separation of powers, the bench said adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the judiciary and the “Executive cannot replace the Judiciary”. “We have referred to the doctrine of public trust and public accountability. We have concluded that if Executive demolishes the house of person arbitrarily merely because he is accused, it violates principle of separation of powers,” Justice Gavai said.
Recognizing the emotional and practical significance of housing for ordinary citizens, the Court questioned whether it was justifiable to demolish a home solely because one resident is accused of a crime.
“State and its officials can’t take arbitrary and excessive measures. If any officer of the State has abused his power or acted in total arbitrary or malafide manner, he cannot be spared,” it added.
Justice Gavai pointed that when a particular structure is chosen for demolition suddenly and similar other properties are not touched, then the presumption could be that the real motive was not razing the illegal structure, but “penalising without trial”.
“For an average citizen, construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. House embodies collective hope of security and future. If this is taken away, authorities must satisfy it is the only way,” the bench said.
Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court issued guidelines for demolitions. It ordered that no demolition should occur without a showcause notice, which must be provided to the property owner, allowing 15 days or the applicable time under local law to respond.
Directions Issued
- If a demolition order is issued, time must be allowed for the affected party to appeal the decision.
- No demolition shall occur without a show cause notice. This notice must be sent by registered post to the building owner and also affixed to the exterior of the structure slated for demolition. At least 15 days must be provided from the date of the notice before any further demolition actions are initiated.
- The notice should detail the nature of the violations that prompted the proposed demolition, including the date and the authority before whom a personal hearing will take place.
- To avoid any allegations of backdating, once the show cause notice is served, notification must be sent to the Collector/District Magistrate (DM) of the district via email, with an auto-generated acknowledgment of receipt from the Collector/DM’s office.
- The Collector and DM are responsible for appointing nodal officers to oversee the demolition of municipal buildings.
- A designated digital portal must be created to make the details of such notices and the resulting orders publicly available.
- After the personal hearing with the relevant authority, minutes should be recorded. The final order must clarify whether the offense of constructing an unauthorized structure can be compounded. If only part of the structure is deemed illegal, the rationale for choosing demolition as the sole recourse must be examined.
- Orders regarding demolition must be displayed on the digital portal.
- The owner should be given an opportunity to demolish or remove the unauthorized structure within 15 days of the order. Further demolition actions should only proceed if an appellate body has not issued a stay on the order.
- Demolition proceedings must be videographed, and these recordings should be preserved.
- A demolition report should be submitted to the relevant municipal commissioner.
These directives are to be communicated to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories.
The notice should detail the nature of the illegal construction and the grounds for demolition. Authorities must listen to the affected person before making a final decision.
If an appeal does not suspend the demolition, the house owner will have 15 days to remove the illegal structure before authorities proceed.
The Court warned that violations of its directives could lead to contempt proceedings, and officials found responsible for illegal demolitions would be required to restore the demolished property at their own expense, with recovery costs deducted from their salaries.
Additionally, it ordered all municipal authorities to set up a digital portal within three months to track showcause notices and final orders related to illegal structures.
Case Title: Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures
View Order
