In a significant ruling aimed at curbing arbitrary actions by state authorities, the Supreme Court on Wednesday pronounced stringent guidelines to eliminate the practice of demolishing houses of accused, popularly known as “bulldozer justice.” This practice, employed by many states in recent times, involves the demolition of homes and properties of individuals accused of crimes before a fair trial. The apex court declared that no house of an accused can be demolished solely on the basis of allegations without due legal process, emphasizing that the truth of such accusations must be determined by the judiciary, not the executive.
Due process of law: The Supreme Court underscored that even if an individual is convicted of a heinous offense, the state cannot demolish their house without following the due process. “Right to shelter is a fundamental right and it cannot be violated arbitrarily,” a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan asserted.
Separation of powers: The judgment reinforced the separation of powers, noting that adjudicatory functions are reserved for the judiciary, and the executive must not overstep its authority by assuming the role of the judiciary. “The executive cannot become judge and declare a person guilty,” Justice Gavai said. He highlighted that demolishing the house of an accused without a trial strikes at 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 one member is accused of a crime amounts to collective punishment, which is impermissible in law. “House is not just a property but a shelter for the entire family,” the bench noted. Before proceeding with demolition, the state must assess whether such an extreme measure is justified, considering its impact on the family, including women and children.
Selective demolition is illegal: The bench criticized the selective demolition of properties, noting that authorities sometimes target accused persons’ homes while leaving similar illegal structures untouched. Such practices, Justice Gavai noted, indicate ulterior motives and violate the principles of fairness.
Mandatory notice period: The court mandated a minimum 15-day notice period for occupants to respond to allegations of illegal structures. This notice must be delivered via registered post and displayed on the outer portion of the house. If no response is received, the state may proceed with the demolition, but it must be documented through videography.
Compensation for arbitrary actions: If houses are demolished without adhering to legal procedures, the families affected will be entitled to compensation. Additionally, officers responsible for such arbitrary actions would face legal proceedings. Justice Gavai emphasized, “Public officials who take the law in their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability.”
Restitution and accountability: Justice Gavai declared that violations of these guidelines would result in departmental proceedings against responsible officials, who would also face contempt of court and may have to pay costs from their salaries. “Our constitutional ethos does not permit any such abuse of power,” he said, emphasizing the need for public trust and accountability in state actions.
Compliance and implementation: To ensure the adherence to these guidelines, the Supreme Court has instructed that the norms be circulated among all states and Union territories. The states are required to issue circulars to all District Magistrates outlining these procedures. A digital portal for filing and viewing demolition notices must be set up within three months to increase transparency.
(With inputs from agencies)