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 Supreme Court of India will deliver a judgment on November 13, 2024, regarding petitions challenging the “bulldozer actions” by state governments, where properties of crime-accused individuals are demolished. The case, presided over by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, has attracted attention due to concerns over property rights and due process. Critics argue these demolitions violate legal rights by bypassing proper judicial procedures, while supporters view them as a deterrent against crime. The verdict is expected to set an important precedent on balancing state powers with individual rights.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud served his last judgement at the Supreme Court, before officially stepping down from the post, making way for his successor-Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The judgment, delivered on November 6 by a bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directly challenged the state’s use of demolitions as a means of reprisal, a practice that often sidelines established legal procedures.
The Supreme Court of India condemned punitive demolitions, stating that “Justice through bulldozers” is unacceptable. The court emphasized following due process before demolishing alleged illegal constructions. Highlighting citizens’ rights, it criticized selective actions by authorities and mandated procedural safeguards for demolitions. The ruling underscores the importance of protecting property rights and ensuring lawful enforcement, countering arbitrary state actions.
Today, On 6th November, the Supreme Court criticized Uttar Pradesh for unlawfully demolishing a house in 2019, ordering Rs 25 lakh in compensation to the homeowner. The court emphasized the need for lawful procedures in property demolition and directed an investigation into the involved officials, reinforcing citizens’ rights against arbitrary state actions.
![[Bulldozer Action] "Don't Want To Open Pandora Box": SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Contempt Of Demolition Order By 3 States](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/bulldozer-2.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court Today (Oct 24) refused to entertain a plea alleging contempt of its order on demolition of properties by the authorities in Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai and comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan said it was not inclined to entertain the plea filed by the petitioner who was not directly or indirectly related to the alleged act. The court said it will hear those affected by the demolition of properties.
Yesterday, On 14th October, the Supreme Court dismissed a new plea against the use of bulldozers for demolition, asserting the issue had been resolved. It also declined to consider compensation claims for affected individuals. Reserved judgments on bulldozer actions are anticipated, emphasizing legal guidelines and protections regardless of religion amidst growing concerns over “bulldozer justice.”
Today, On 1st October, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that no religious structure can obstruct public spaces, emphasizing India’s secular nature. It ruled that all encroachments must be removed, applying equally to all citizens. The court stated that unauthorized constructions violate public safety and must adhere to uniform laws, regardless of religious affiliation.
![[BREAKING] "How Can House Be Demolished Because Somebody Is An Accused?": SC To Frame Pan-India Guidelines On 'Bulldozer Actions'](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/DJETRHFM.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court Today (Sept 2) came down heavily on ‘bulldozer justice’, questioning how a house can be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case. The court also said that it proposes to lay down guidelines on the issue. “Even if he is a convict, still it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.”