Demolition of properties: Why Supreme Court declared ‘bulldozer justice’ illegal – Times of India

In a major ruling aimed at curbing arbitrary actions by state authorities, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued strict guidelines to eradicate the practice of demolishing houses of suspects, popularly known as ‘eliminating’.bulldozer justiceThis practice, recently adopted by many states, involves the demolition of homes and properties of persons accused of crimes before due process. The Supreme Court stated that no house of an accused can be demolished solely on the basis of allegations without due legal process, stressing that the truth of such allegations must be determined by the judiciary, and not the executive.
Due process: The Supreme Court underlined that even if an individual is convicted of a heinous crime, the state cannot demolish his house without following due process. “Right to shelter is a fundamental right and cannot be arbitrarily violated,” a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said.
Separation of powers: The judgment strengthened the separation of powers, noting that judicial power is reserved for the judiciary, and that the executive should not exceed its authority by assuming the role of the judiciary. “The executive cannot become a judge and declare someone guilty,” Judge Gavai said. He emphasized that demolishing a suspect’s house without trial undermines the fundamental principles of the rule of law.
Protection against collective punishment: The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that demolishing a family home because a member is accused of a crime amounts to collective punishment, which is impermissible under the law. “A house is not just a property but a shelter for the entire family,” the bench noted. Before demolition, the state must assess whether such an extreme measure is justified, given its impact on the family, including women and children.
Selective demolition is illegal: The bank criticized the selective approach demolition of propertynoting that authorities sometimes target suspects’ homes while leaving similar illegal structures untouched. Such practices, Judge Gavai noted, indicate ulterior motives and are contrary to the principles of fairness.
Mandatory notice period: The court has imposed a minimum 15-day notice on residents to respond to allegations of illegal construction. This notice must be delivered by certified mail and displayed outside the house. If there is no response, the state may proceed with the demolition, but this must be documented through videography.
Compensation for arbitrary actions: If houses are demolished without following legal procedures, affected families are entitled to compensation. Furthermore, officials responsible for such arbitrary actions would face legal action. Judge Gavai emphasized: “Government officials who take the law into their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be held accountable.”
Refund and accountability: Judge Gavai stated that violations of these guidelines would result in departmental proceedings against responsible officials, who would also face contempt of court and possibly have to pay the cost of their salaries. “Our constitutional ethos does not permit such abuse of power,” he said, emphasizing the need for public trust and responsibility in state actions.
Compliance and implementation: To ensure compliance with these guidelines, the Supreme Court has directed that the norms be disseminated to all states and Union Territories. States are required to issue circulars to all district magistrates detailing these procedures. To increase transparency, a digital portal for submitting and viewing demolition notifications must be set up within three months.
(With input from agencies)