Supreme Court Takes Firm Stand on ‘Bulldozer Justice,’ Emphasizes Due Process in Demolition Actions
New Delhi: In a landmark ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India addressed the controversial practice of ‘bulldozer justice,’ delivering a stern message that the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary in matters of justice. The bench, led by Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, issued a judgment that laid down clear guidelines for demolitions, ensuring that such actions follow due process and do not prejudge the guilt of individuals accused of crimes.
The ruling came in response to several petitions challenging demolitions carried out by authorities against individuals accused of involvement in criminal activities. These demolitions, often carried out in a swift and punitive manner, have drawn widespread criticism for bypassing legal procedures and taking extrajudicial measures to punish alleged offenders. While authorities have justified these demolitions by claiming they target only illegal structures, the Court stressed the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to the principles of justice.
Right to Shelter and Protection from Arbitrary Actions
Justice Gavai, in his observations, emphasized the fundamental importance of the right to shelter, calling it an aspiration for every family. He noted that housing represents more than just a physical structure; for most citizens, it embodies years of hard work, dreams, and the sense of security. “The right to a home cannot be arbitrarily taken away by the State, especially in a democracy where the rule of law prevails,” the judge remarked.
The Court’s ruling also underscored that the Executive must not take arbitrary actions, particularly when such decisions infringe upon an individual’s basic rights. It rejected the notion that a house could be demolished solely based on the accusation of one of its residents being involved in a crime. The Court stressed that guilt must be proven through due legal processes and not assumed or acted upon prematurely.
Separation of Powers and Judicial Oversight
The bench further reinforced the principle of separation of powers, highlighting that the judiciary, and not the Executive, is responsible for ensuring justice in criminal matters. “The Executive cannot replace the Judiciary,” the judges stated. This assertion served as a reminder that the government must act within the limits set by the Constitution, respecting the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and accountability.
The ruling also aimed to address the increasing tendency of authorities to bypass judicial review and act unilaterally in the demolition of property. The Court called for public officials who engage in arbitrary and unlawful actions to be held accountable, ensuring that they do not abuse their power.
Guidelines for Demolition Actions
In its ruling, the Court laid down a set of comprehensive guidelines to regulate demolitions. These guidelines ensure that demolitions are not carried out without proper legal procedures and safeguards. According to the Court’s directions:
- Issuance of Showcause Notice: No demolition can take place without the issuance of a showcause notice. This notice must clearly specify the unauthorized construction, the specific violations of law, and the grounds for demolition.
- Right to Response: The individual facing demolition will have 15 days to respond to the showcause notice. The concerned authorities must hear the response before passing any final order.
- Appellate Review: If an appellate authority stays the demolition order, the authorities are prohibited from proceeding with the demolition until the appeal is resolved.
- Accountability for Arbitrary Demolitions: Officers who violate these guidelines and carry out illegal demolitions will be held responsible for restoring the demolished property, with the costs deducted from their salary.
- Digital Transparency: The Court instructed local municipal authorities to create a digital portal within three months to track showcause notices and final orders related to demolitions. This will ensure greater transparency and public accountability in the demolition process.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
The Court also issued a stern warning that any violation of its directions would lead to contempt proceedings. Public officials found guilty of improper demolitions would face not only legal consequences but also financial penalties, with the cost of restoration being borne by them.
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant step towards curbing the arbitrary use of state power and protecting citizens’ rights against undue State action. It reinforces the principle that justice must be administered fairly, and that individuals are entitled to the due process guaranteed under the law, regardless of the accusations against them. With these guidelines, the Court has taken a strong position against ‘bulldozer justice,’ emphasizing that no one can be punished without a fair trial and proper legal procedures.
