Today, On 13th November, The Supreme Court issued strict directions to prevent “bulldozer justice,” warning that officials who ignore these rules will face contempt charges. They will be responsible for restoring any wrongfully demolished properties at their own expense, in addition to paying compensation. The Court’s orders emphasize accountability and aim to deter arbitrary demolitions. Failure to comply could lead to serious legal consequences for the officials involved.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court 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 Court clarified that demolitions of accused individuals’ homes “cannot be done without due notice” and must allow “space for the affected persons to appeal.”
The justices expressed concern over the impact on families, noting,
“It is not a happy sight to see women and children on roads after demolition overnight without time to appeal.”
The Court warned that failure to follow these guidelines would make responsible officials liable for contempt and prosecution. Such officials would also be required to personally fund the restitution of demolished properties and pay compensation. However, the Court specified that these directions do not interfere with actions against illegal structures on roads, riverbanks, or similar areas.
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.
This announcement follows a series of petitions addressing concerns over Central and State governments demolishing properties of individuals accused in criminal cases as a form of extra-legal punishment. Previously, the Bench imposed a temporary ban on demolitions of properties belonging to those suspected of criminal activity without prior court approval.
The judgment, reserved on October 1, emphasized that these directives would be applicable nationwide and not limited to any specific community.
This development comes on the heels of a ruling by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, stating that “bulldozer justice” is unacceptable under the rule of law.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh, while senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh, Sanjay Hegde, MR Shamshad, along with advocates Nizam Pasha and Anas Tanwir, represented the affected parties.
Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared on behalf of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing.
Read Judgement
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
