Introduction:

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India took a strong stance against the controversial trend of “bulldozer justice”—the arbitrary demolition of homes and properties belonging to individuals accused of crimes. The Court underscored that this practice, enacted by certain state authorities as a means of punishment or intimidation, not only contravenes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law but also violates the principles of judicial review and separation of powers. The judgment came as a response to several petitions, led by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, urging the Court to intervene against what petitioners described as punitive demolitions targeting communities in various states. This ruling represents a significant step in reasserting the role of due process and judicial authority over executive power.

The Court’s judgment emphasised that while municipalities have the authority to address unauthorized constructions, the power cannot be misused to penalize individuals merely based on accusations. The bench, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, laid down comprehensive guidelines to ensure that demolitions follow due process and reiterated that arbitrary actions would be met with strict accountability.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners argued that state authorities, particularly in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat, have increasingly resorted to demolishing the properties of accused individuals as a form of “collective punishment” without proper legal grounds. This, they claimed, was a violation of constitutional guarantees and a tool for penalizing certain communities. Notably, in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri neighbourhood, a demolition drive following communal unrest was met with significant controversy, as it appeared to single out certain groups for punishment under the guise of enforcing municipal law. The petitioners highlighted that this trend had extended beyond Delhi to other states, leading to numerous petitions against what they described as “bulldozer justice.”

The petitioners contended that these demolitions lacked adherence to the principles of natural justice and were punitive, aimed not at enforcing municipal laws but at inflicting hardship on individuals, often without any formal conviction. Senior Advocates, including Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that allowing such demolitions, based solely on accusations, breached the core of the rule of law and judicial oversight. The petitioners emphasized that a judicial verdict, not an executive decision, is required to establish guilt and impose punishment, as per constitutional principles.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The states, particularly Uttar Pradesh, defended their actions by stating that the demolitions were legally sanctioned under municipal laws addressing unauthorized constructions. They argued that demolition orders were issued following violations of local building codes and individuals involved had been duly notified. State authorities clarified that the intent was not to punish the accused but to address unauthorized structures.

The respondents argued that unauthorized construction is a serious issue in urban areas and requires firm action. They insisted that demolitions were conducted after issuing notices, and any association with the accused’s criminal activities was incidental. However, the Court noted that such a defence failed to justify instances where demolitions appeared punitive and selective, suggesting a misuse of municipal laws for coercive purposes.

Court’s Judgment:

• Reaffirmation of Judicial Authority and Due Process:

The Supreme Court ruled emphatically that demolishing properties based solely on accusations, without a judicial conviction, violates the rule of law and separation of powers. The judgment underscored that declaring a person guilty and enforcing punitive measures are powers vested exclusively in the judiciary. The Court noted that allowing the executive to act as judge and executioner in matters of alleged criminal conduct undermines the judicial system and can lead to abuse of power.

The Court highlighted that in a constitutional democracy, any punitive measure taken by the state must be based on judicial pronouncements and follow due process. The ruling stressed that executive overreach not only disrupts due process but can foster a “might makes right” environment, particularly when demolitions are conducted without following proper protocols.

• Critique of Arbitrary and Collective Punishments:

The judgment expressed concerns over the high-handed nature of such demolitions, describing them as “collective punishment” imposed on the accused and their families. The Court noted that targeting properties of specific individuals, especially without proper legal basis, was arbitrary and akin to “lawless retribution.” The Court underscored that the sight of bulldozers demolishing homes as punitive action evokes imagery of a lawless state, which has no place in a society governed by constitutional principles.

The Court’s criticism extended to demolitions that were selectively enforced, where authorities did not apply the same standards to similar unauthorized structures in the vicinity. This selectivity, the Court observed, lends itself to a presumption of malice and targeted action. Such practices, according to the Court, distort the purpose of municipal laws and diminish public trust in government impartiality.

• Detailed Guidelines to Ensure Compliance:

With Due Process To ensure fairness in future demolition proceedings, the Court established comprehensive guidelines aimed at preventing arbitrary demolitions and enforcing accountability:

• Show-Cause Notice:

Demolition cannot proceed without prior show-cause notice, to be delivered by municipal timelines or within 15 days of service. Notices should be sent by registered post, affixed to the property, and electronically registered with the office of the District Magistrate (DM) to prevent manipulation or ante-dating.

• Personal Hearing and Final Order:

The authority responsible for demolition must provide an opportunity for a personal hearing. The final order should detail whether the construction is compoundable, clearly stating if demolition is the only available recourse. A digital record of these proceedings must be maintained for public scrutiny.

• Appeal and Notice Period:

The Court mandated 15 days following the final demolition order to allow affected parties to appeal or take necessary actions. This grace period will ensure that no immediate action is taken without giving the accused a fair chance to respond.

• Digital Transparency and Inspection Reports:

Every municipal body must create a digital portal to log details of all demolition actions, from notices to final orders. Before demolition, a thorough inspection report should be prepared, documenting unauthorized aspects of the structure and the rationale for demolition. The process must be videographed and documented for future reference.

• Police and Civilian Accountability:

The ruling stressed accountability for public officials who execute unlawful demolitions. Officers involved in wrongful demolitions could face contempt proceedings and personal liability, including restitution of property costs.

The Court further clarified that its guidelines would not restrict demolitions addressing unauthorized structures that obstruct public infrastructure like roads, footpaths, or railways, where removal is necessary for public safety and welfare.

• Implementation and State-Level Responsibility:

The Supreme Court ordered that its judgment be circulated widely to Chief Secretaries of all states and Union Territories. State governments were instructed to communicate these directives to municipal authorities to prevent misuse of demolition powers. The Court expressed gratitude for the contributions of senior advocates and legal experts who provided valuable insights and suggestions to shape these guidelines.

• Invoking Article 142 for Pan-India Impact:

In a noteworthy move, the Court invoked Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers it to pass orders enforceable across India to prevent injustice. This invocation underscored the Court’s commitment to establishing consistent standards nationwide for demolition procedures, safeguarding due process across states and municipalities.