The Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgment rejecting the practice of “bulldozer justice,” where state authorities demolish properties of individuals accused of crimes. This practice, widespread in several states, has often been portrayed as a way to remove illegal structures. However, the Court emphasized that demolishing homes without due process violates fundamental rights and contradicts the principles of law and justice.

In its judgment, a bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan asserted that the "Executive cannot replace the Judiciary," warning that any further disregard for the Court's guidelines could lead to contempt proceedings. This ruling comes in response to multiple petitions that challenged such demolition actions, alleging them to be extrajudicial and retributive.

The Essence of the Judgment: Defending Citizens’ Rights to Shelter

Justice Gavai emphasized that a house is more than just a structure; it embodies hope, security, and years of hard work. The bench questioned whether the Executive should have the power to take away someone’s shelter based on unproven accusations, highlighting that the rule of law requires a fair judicial process without prejudgment of an accused’s guilt.

“The rule of law provides a framework to ensure that individuals know their property will not be taken arbitrarily,” the judgment read, reinforcing the need to respect citizens’ constitutional rights against arbitrary state actions.

Separation of Powers and Executive Accountability

The Court highlighted that under India’s democratic framework, the Judiciary holds adjudicatory powers, and any punitive actions such as demolitions must not bypass legal due process. Justice Gavai pointed out that demolitions that target specific properties while sparing others could indicate that the intent was to “penalize without trial.”

The bench further stated that accountability must be enforced on public officials who misuse their power. State officials acting arbitrarily or in bad faith will be held liable, including being financially responsible for the restoration of any unlawfully demolished property.

Mandatory Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court

Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid out clear procedural guidelines to ensure due process in demolition cases:

1. Notice Requirement: Demolitions cannot proceed without a show-cause notice. Property owners must receive detailed notice through registered post and a visible posting on the building itself, specifying the nature of the alleged violations.

2. Hearing and Appeal Opportunity: Property owners are entitled to a personal hearing and may challenge the demolition order. A 15-day period is provided to the owner to respond and, if necessary, remove any unauthorized structure.

3. Transparency and Documentation: All demolition orders must be posted on a designated digital portal, accessible to the public, listing details about the violation and the authority responsible.

4. Video Recording: All demolition actions must be video recorded, with footage preserved as evidence to ensure accountability and transparency.

5. Official Oversight: Local administrative officers, such as the Collector or District Magistrate, must appoint nodal officers for each demolition and ensure the process adheres to established legal norms.

6. Restitution and Accountability: If officials breach these guidelines, they will be liable for contempt of court, and the cost of restitution may be deducted from their salaries.

7. Special Protections for Inhabitants: Demolitions cannot proceed if the home shelters individuals who are not directly accused. Moreover, only the illegal portions of a structure may be targeted, and demolitions should be a last resort after exploring other options.

Past Precedents: Supreme Court’s Stance on “Bulldozer Justice”

This ruling is consistent with past Supreme Court orders, including one from November 6 regarding a similar demolition in Uttar Pradesh. The bench condemned “bulldozer justice” as contrary to democratic values and ordered the UP government to compensate affected families, emphasizing that demolitions should not be punitive or violate citizens' rights.

The Court’s stance remains that demolitions must be regulated and cannot be used as an extrajudicial punishment. Justice Gavai, in previous hearings, highlighted that the state must follow lawful procedures, especially if innocent families risk being left homeless without warning.

Implications for Local Governments and Officials

The Supreme Court has directed that these new guidelines be shared with Chief Secretaries across all states and Union Territories, ensuring compliance nationwide. Municipal authorities are now mandated to set up digital portals within three months to centralize records of demolition notices and orders, increasing transparency and allowing citizens to track enforcement actions.

This judgment reinforces the separation of powers, emphasizing that the Executive cannot override the Judiciary by acting as judge and executioner. It underscores the importance of accountability, ensuring that the rights to property and due process are protected. The ruling has set a firm legal precedent, mandating adherence to constitutional values and reinforcing the public’s trust in a fair and transparent judicial process.