The Supreme Court underscored that it is unconstitutional to demolish a person’s property without adhering to the due process of law, simply on the grounds of their alleged involvement in a crime.

Background of the Case

• The case involved a series of petitions challenging the “extra-legal” practice of demolishing houses of individuals accused of criminal activities  in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand.
• The recent ruling was prompted by incidents in Udaipur, Rajasthan, and Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, earlier this year.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Key Guidelines Issued By The Supreme Court

• Guidelines for Demolition Procedures: The Supreme Court, invoking Article 142, issued nationwide guidelines to  prevent illegal and retributive bulldozing of homes and private properties of accused persons by States

• Demolition cannot be carried out without Show Cause notice: 
  • Authorities must issue a show cause notice via registered post to the property owner and post it outside the building. 
  • This notice must provide a 15-day period or the timeframe specified in local laws whichever is later, to respond.
• Digital Recordkeeping and Accountability:
  • Digital Notification to Prevent Backdating: The Court directed that once a show cause notice is served, a digital notification must be sent to the district collector or magistrate’s office via email.
  • Designation of Nodal Officer: The Court instructed that within one month, the district collector or magistrate must appoint a nodal officer responsible for managing demolition-related notices.
    • The apex court also called for setting up a designated digital portal to provide details of such notices and orders. 
• Mandatory Videography of Demolition:  Demolition proceedings have to be videographed and the report has to be submitted to the concerned municipal commissioner.
• Justification for Demolition in the Final Order: The final order should mention why the “extreme step” of demolition is the only option and other options like compounding and demolishing a part of the property are not possible.
• Accountability and Contempt of Court: Officials who violate these guidelines face contempt of court charges.
  • They will be liable for restitution of the demolished property at their own cost and also pay compensation.
• Exceptions to the Guidelines: The guidelines do not apply to unauthorised structures on public land such as roads, footpaths, or near bodies of water, or where a court order mandates demolition.
• Past Demolitions Not Covered: The new directives do not provide relief for individuals whose properties were already demolished without due process either in terms of providing compensation to the victims of the demolitions or fixing accountability on errant officers.
• Nationwide implementation: The bench said the Registrar (judicial) of the apex court shall circulate a copy of its judgement to the Chief Secretaries of all the states and Union Territories
  • to ensure compliance with the directions issued with regard to the procedure to be followed for the purpose of road widening in general.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning For The Guidelines

• Violation of the Right to Shelter: The Supreme Court emphasised that demolishing properties based on accusations alone violates the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21. 

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

• Collective Punishment Concerns: The Court highlighted that demolishing a house belonging to an accused unfairly punishes all family members, which amounts to “collective punishment.” 
• Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence: The Court reiterated that an accused person is ‘presumed innocent until proven guilty’. 
  • Collective punishment through demolition contradicts this principle and cannot be justified under the Constitution.
• Selective Demolitions and Presumption of Mala Fide: The Court condemned selective demolitions, noting that when one structure is singled out while others remain, it suggests mala fide intent. 
  • This creates the perception that the action was punitive rather than a lawful response to illegal structures.
• Separation of Powers: The Supreme Court stated that the executive cannot demolish the property of an accused without following due process.The Court described the “chilling sight” of a bulldozer demolishing a building without due process as a reminder of a “lawless state”.
  • It highlighted that when the executive acts as both judge and enforcer, it breaches the principle of separation of powers.
• Recognition of Accused’s Rights: The Court concluded by affirming that even accused or convicted individuals retain constitutional and legal safeguards, and any action against them must respect these rights.

About Bulldozer Justice

• “Bulldozer justice” refers to a form of extralegal action where authorities demolish properties as a means of punishment, often targeting individuals accused of crimes or dissenting against the government.

Reasons For the Rise of Bulldozer Justice in Recent Times

• Political Motivations: The ‘tough on crime’ or ‘eye for an eye’ approach has become political symbolism for several state governments.
  • Bulldozer Justice  serves as symbolic acts that help gain votes of voters who favour a hardline approach to governance and law enforcement.
• Weak Legal Framework: The absence of clear laws against demolitions as punitive measures and loopholes in urban regulations allow authorities to act arbitrarily without legal justification.
• Quick Solution to Encroachments: Rapid urban growth has led to increased unauthorised constructions, and bulldozer demolitions are used as a quick solution to clear encroachments in high-demand areas.
• Populist Appeal: Bulldozers appeal to public sentiment by offering a quick, visible form of “justice,” especially in cases of crime or perceived wrongdoings.
  • Bulldozer Action is projected as a form of decisive action.
• Social Media Amplification: The dramatic visuals of demolitions spread quickly on social media, further popularising the practice and reinforcing its association with “justice“.

Check Out UPSC NCERT Textbooks From PW Store

Issues Due to the Rise of Bulldozer Justice

• Violation of Due Process: Extra Judicial demolitions bypass legal procedures, undermining the rule of law and citizens’ right to a fair trial.
• Collective Punishment: Innocent family members are affected, violating their fundamental rights.
  • Leads to homelessness and loss of livelihoods, especially for vulnerable and marginalised groups.
• Erosion of Trust in Judiciary: Undermines public confidence in the judiciary when executive actions bypass legal safeguards.
• Human Rights Violations: Results in unlawful evictions, property destruction, and loss of shelter.
• Inconsistent Application: Selective demolitions create perceptions of bias and lawlessness.
• Impact on Urban Planning: Poorly executed demolitions disrupt communities and hinder fair urban development.

Ethical Implications of the Supreme Court Judgment on Bulldozer Justice

• Reinforcement of Legal Justice: The judgement upholds procedural justice, ensuring that demolitions are carried out only through fair and transparent processes. 
• Upholds Accountability of Officers: By holding authorities personally accountable for unlawful demolitions, the accountability and administrative integrity of the Officers are promoted.
• Prevention of Arbitrary Executive Actions: By asserting the principle of separation of powers, the judgement curtails executive overreach.
• Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups: The judgement protects marginalised communities from demolitions particularly those based on communal or political motivations, contributing to social justice.
• Enhances Transparency: The guidelines laid down by the SC place emphasis on transparency. Example: By ensuring demolitions are documented and monitored
• Ethical Governance: The judgement encourages a shift toward ethical governance, where public authorities are expected to act in the public’s best interest, grounded in principles of fairness and respect for the rule of law.

Way Forward

• Independent Monitoring: Establish independent bodies to oversee demolitions, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines and addressing instances of abuse of power.
• Community Outreach: Educate citizens on their legal rights, including protections against arbitrary demolitions, empowering vulnerable communities to seek justice.
• Changing Attitudes: Local authorities, from councillors to police, must internalise the Court’s message and uphold principles of natural justice.
• Long-term Solutions: Invest in inclusive comprehensive urban planning.
  • Offer alternative solutions for encroachments wherever possible.
    • Example: Regularisation of properties in specific zones, Rehabilitation programs for affected families.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s ruling on bulldozer justice is a positive step towards upholding constitutional rights.
• However, continued vigilance and strict ground level implementation of the guidelines are needed to prevent arbitrary demolitions and protect citizens’ dignity.

DOWNLOAD PDF