The Supreme Court took a firm stance on the issue of ‘bulldozer justice’ on Tuesday, ruling that the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and emphasizing the need for due process in demolition actions. The Court laid down clear guidelines for demolitions, underscoring that legal processes should not prejudge the guilt of an accused.
The bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, issued the judgment on petitions challenging demolitions carried out against individuals accused of crimes. These demolitions, often referred to as ‘bulldozer justice,’ have been carried out in several states, with authorities claiming they were targeting only illegal structures. However, numerous petitions questioned the extrajudicial nature of such actions.
Justice Gavai highlighted that the right to a home is a fundamental aspiration for every family, stressing that the Executive should not have the power to arbitrarily take away someone’s shelter. The Court noted that the rule of law is the cornerstone of a democratic society and that fairness in the criminal justice system mandates that guilt should not be prejudged.
The Court emphasized the importance of protecting individuals from arbitrary State actions and reiterated the principle of separation of powers. “The Executive cannot replace the Judiciary,” said the bench, citing the doctrine of public trust and accountability. It concluded that demolishing a person’s house arbitrarily, based solely on accusations, violates this principle.
In its ruling, the Court also pointed out that accountability must be fixed on public officials who take matters into their own hands and act in an arbitrary manner. The State cannot take excessive or arbitrary measures, and any officer found to have abused their power will be held accountable.
The Court further questioned whether authorities could demolish a house simply because one resident was accused of a crime. It highlighted that for most citizens, a home represents years of hard work, dreams, and security, and any action that removes this right must be thoroughly justified.
Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court set out specific guidelines for demolitions. It mandated that no demolition could take place without issuing a showcause notice. The notice must specify the nature of the unauthorized construction, the specific violations, and the grounds for demolition. The accused will have 15 days to respond, and the authority must hear the response before passing a final order. If an appellate authority halts the demolition order, authorities cannot proceed.
The Court also warned that any violation of its directions would result in contempt proceedings. Officers found guilty of improper demolitions will be held responsible for restoring the demolished property, with the costs being deducted from their salary.
Finally, the Court instructed all local municipal authorities to establish a digital portal within three months to track showcause notices and final orders on illegal constructions, ensuring greater transparency in the process.
