The Supreme Court on Wednesday took a firm stance against the recent trend of “bulldozer justice,” wherein state authorities demolish the homes of individuals accused of crimes. A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan ruled that such actions by the Executive infringe upon the rights of citizens and violate the foundational principles of the rule of law.
Delivering its judgment on petitions challenging demolitions in cases involving alleged illegal activity, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary. “The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic government,” the bench stated, adding that “legal processes should not prejudge the guilt of the accused.”
Rule of Law and Separation of Powers
The bench outlined the constitutional rights protecting citizens from arbitrary actions by the state, highlighting that the Judiciary, not the Executive, holds the power of adjudication. “We have referred to the doctrine of public trust and public accountability. If the Executive demolishes a house merely because someone is accused, it violates the principle of separation of powers,” said Justice Gavai.
Justice Gavai underscored the emotional and financial significance of owning a home, remarking that “for an average citizen, a house represents years of hard work and security.” The court questioned whether authorities could justify demolishing a home when only one resident may be accused, highlighting the serious consequences for families affected by such actions.
ALSO READ: AQI breaches 400-mark in Delhi; Zero visibility amid dense smog disrupts flight operations
Accountability of Public Officials
The Supreme Court further emphasized accountability, stating that public officials acting in a high-handed or arbitrary manner should be held responsible. “If any state official has abused power or acted in a malafide manner, he cannot be spared,” the court declared. The bench warned that the Executive cannot declare a person guilty through demolition without due process, as this undermines the principles of fairness and the right to a fair trial.
Justice Gavai observed that selective demolitions could indicate an intent to “penalize without trial,” rather than a lawful crackdown on illegal structures. He stated that demolishing a home should only occur if absolutely necessary and in accordance with established legal norms.
New Guidelines for Demolitions
Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court issued specific guidelines for future demolition actions to ensure transparency and accountability:
- No demolition should proceed without a showcause notice.
- The notice must include details of the alleged unauthorized construction, the specific violations, and the grounds for demolition.
- A response period of at least 15 days must be provided, or as per local civic laws, whichever is longer.
- Authorities are required to hear the accused before making a final demolition order.
The court warned that non-compliance with these guidelines would result in contempt proceedings and ordered that officers responsible for unlawful demolitions will be held financially accountable for restitution, with the costs recovered from their salaries.
The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to uphold constitutional protections, ensuring due process and the separation of powers in matters of justice.
