Supreme Court Rejects ‘Bulldozer Justice’, Sets Clear Guidelines for Demolition

The Supreme Court took a strong stance against the practice of ‘bulldozer justice’ on Wednesday, declaring such actions against accused individuals, and even convicts, as illegal and unconstitutional. The court established clear guidelines for demolishing illegal structures, stating that authorities must follow due process. Violating these guidelines could result in contempt of court actions against officials. The court emphasized that a home is a dream for many, and dreams should not be shattered. The right to housing, the court noted, is a fundamental right. Before any demolition, authorities must issue a notice, allowing at least 15 days before any action is taken. The concerned parties must be given a chance to present their side. If bulldozer actions occur without following this procedure, officials will be held accountable and liable for compensation.

Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan’s bench clarified that no property should be demolished solely because an individual is an accused, as such actions are unconstitutional. The court remarked that the executive cannot determine guilt and cannot take on the role of the judiciary by deciding who is guilty or not. Such actions would be a gross overstep of authority.

The court further stated that even if someone is convicted of a crime, bulldozer actions cannot be taken against their property. This type of action, if carried out by the executive, would be illegal and akin to taking the law into their own hands. The executive cannot declare someone guilty and demolish their property based only on accusations; doing so would undermine the basic principles of the rule of law. The court stressed that any excesses by the executive must be dealt with by the courts, as the constitutional framework does not allow misuse of such power.

The bench noted that if only specific structures are targeted for demolition, while similar properties remain untouched, it suggests that the real intent is not legal but punitive, without a fair hearing. The Supreme Court also compared bulldozer actions to imposing “collective punishment” on families of the accused, particularly when such actions seem driven by malice.

The court recognized the right to housing as part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It ruled that before demolishing someone’s home, authorities must prove that demolition is the only viable option, and other alternatives should be considered instead of demolishing the entire property. The court also pointed out that seeing women and children dragged out onto the streets at night is an unpleasant sight. Without a clear “show cause” notice, no demolition should occur. The notice must be served within 15 days, either according to local municipal laws or from the date of service, whichever is later. The notice must detail the nature of the illegal construction, specific violations, and the grounds for demolition, and it should be sent via registered mail and posted on the property’s exterior.

Authorities must allow the accused an opportunity for a personal hearing, and the details of this hearing must be recorded. The final order should include the arguments of the notice recipient. The demolition process must be video-recorded, and the demolition report should be made available on a digital platform.

Failure to comply with these directives will result in contempt proceedings against the officials. If demolitions are found to violate the guidelines, the authorities will be held responsible for restoring the demolished property at their own expense and must pay compensation.

The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on petitions challenging ‘bulldozer justice’ on October 1. These petitions argued that such actions disproportionately affected minorities and marginalized communities.