New Delhi: The Executive cannot overstep the Judiciary, and legal processes must avoid prejudging an accused’s guilt, the Supreme Court emphasized today while issuing strict guidelines on ‘bulldozer justice’ and demolition practices.
The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, addressed petitions challenging the practice of demolishing properties of individuals accused of crimes. Known as ‘bulldozer justice,’ this approach has been adopted in several states, with authorities claiming only illegal structures were targeted. However, multiple petitions raised concerns about the extrajudicial nature of these demolitions.
Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a fundamental aspiration for every family and questioned whether the Executive should have the power to strip individuals of their shelter. “The rule of law underpins a democratic government,” he stated, adding, “This issue concerns fairness in the criminal justice system, which requires that legal processes not prejudge an accused’s guilt.”
“We have considered the constitutional rights protecting individuals from arbitrary actions by the State. The rule of law provides a framework that ensures people know their property cannot be seized without due process,” the court stated.
Addressing the separation of powers, the bench clarified that adjudicatory roles are reserved for the judiciary and that “the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary.” Justice Gavai explained, “We referred to the doctrines of public trust and accountability. If the Executive demolishes a person’s house solely on the grounds of an accusation, it breaches the principle of separation of powers.”
The court emphasized that public officials who act arbitrarily or abusively must be held accountable. “The State and its officials cannot take arbitrary, excessive actions. If any State officer abuses power or acts arbitrarily or in bad faith, they cannot be exempt from responsibility,” it stated.
Justice Gavai noted that if one structure is suddenly targeted for demolition while similar properties remain untouched, it raises a presumption that the intent is “punishment without trial.” He added, “For the average citizen, building a home is the culmination of years of hard work and dreams. It represents security and future. Authorities must prove that demolition is the only viable option.”
The court also questioned if authorities can demolish an entire household based on one resident’s alleged involvement in a crime.
Under Article 142, the Supreme Court issued new guidelines for demolitions, stating that no demolition should occur without a show-cause notice. The notice recipient must be given 15 days (or the duration stated in local laws) to respond. This notice must outline the specific nature of unauthorized construction, violations, and demolition grounds. The authority must hear the individual before issuing a final order. A 15-day period should also be given to remove the illegal structure, with demolition proceeding only if no appeal suspends the order.
Non-compliance with these directives may result in contempt proceedings, the bench warned. Officers should be informed that if demolitions are conducted unlawfully, they will be responsible for property restitution, with costs deducted from their salary.
The court further directed all local municipal bodies to establish a digital portal within three months to publish details of show-cause notices and final orders related to illegal structures.
