Today, the Supreme Court of India ruled against “bulldozer justice,” asserting the necessity of fairness in demolitions linked to criminal accusations. Emphasizing property rights as fundamental, the Court established that executive actions should not bypass judicial processes and called for accountability of officials abusing power. The ruling upholds citizens’ rights, rejecting arbitrary state actions disrupting lives and homes.
New Delhi: On Wednesday (Nov 15th) , the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict on so-called “bulldozer justice,” emphasizing the importance of fairness in the criminal justice system and the accountability of state administrations in handling demolitions.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Viswanathan pronounced the ruling, following petitions filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, former Rajya Sabha MP Brinda Karat, and others.
The petitions urged the Court to prevent state governments from demolishing properties of individuals merely accused in criminal cases, a practice that has stirred significant debate and controversy.
Justice Gavai remarked during the hearing, acknowledging the deep emotional and economic investment people place in their homes.
“अपना घर हो, अपना आंगन हो, इस ख्वाब में हर कोई जीता है। इंसान के दिल की ये चाहत है, कि एक घर का सपना कभी न छूटे।”
“Everyone lives in the dream of having their own house and courtyard. It is the desire of the human heart that the dream of having a house should never be lost.”
He questioned the legality of allowing the executive to take away an individual’s shelter, viewing such actions as severe penalties without due process. Stressing that the “legal process should not prejudge guilt of accused,” Justice Gavai underscored the Supreme Court’s stance that property rights and personal freedoms are protected under the Constitution and must not be violated by arbitrary state actions.
Justice Gavai further elaborated on the fundamental nature of property rights within India’s constitutional framework. “Rule of law provides a framework to make sure individuals know property will not be taken away arbitrarily,” he stated, emphasizing that the judiciary is entrusted with adjudicating guilt and sentencing—not the executive. The bench reiterated that executive actions cannot replace judicial procedures, and any overreach by the administration amounts to a violation of the separation of powers principle.
In a strong call for public accountability, Justice Gavai remarked, “If any officer of the State has abused his power or acted in a totally arbitrary or malafide manner, he cannot be spared.”
This statement clarifies the Court’s position on holding public officials responsible when they misuse their authority. The Court highlighted that the doctrine of public trust and accountability requires that the executive cannot demolish homes of accused individuals arbitrarily, as it violates the rights of citizens and disrupts the rule of law.
Justice Gavai addressed the devastating impact of demolitions on families, particularly when only one individual within a household is accused of a crime.
“If only one person residing in a house is accused, would authorities be permitted to demolish the entire structure and remove shelter from heads of persons who are not directly or indirectly related to the crime?”
he questioned, drawing attention to the disproportionate harm inflicted on uninvolved family members.
The Court asserted that “Right to shelter, tracing it to Article 19, has been held to be a fundamental right,” firmly situating shelter as a cornerstone of constitutional protections. Justice Gavai emphasized that the destruction of a home often represents the loss of a lifetime’s hard work and dreams, calling on state administrations to act with fairness, restraint, and respect for constitutional values.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has set a critical precedent against arbitrary demolitions and reinforced the principle that “excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with by the heavy hand of the law.” The Court’s ruling affirms that bulldozer justice has no place in a constitutional democracy, ensuring that the rights and dignity of citizens are upheld against state overreach.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
