On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued stringent guidelines to curb the practice of ‘bulldozer justice’, a controversial measure used by some state governments to demolish the properties of individuals accused of crimes.
The Court emphasized that the executive branch cannot declare a person guilty nor can it unilaterally decide to demolish an accused person’s property without following due legal processes.
The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan, ruled that demolitions could only carried out after a minimum of 15 days’ notice to the property owner.
This notice must sent via registered post and prominently displayed on the property itself, outlining the nature of the violation, the specific reasons for the demolition, and any relevant legal grounds.
The court requires authorities to videograph the demolition process for transparency, and it will charge anyone who fails to follow these guidelines with contempt of court.
The Court’s decision came in response to various petitions challenging arbitrary demolitions carried out by state authorities in the name of punishment, particularly those targeting accused individuals without due process of law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling strongly reinforced the principle that property rights are protected under the Constitution and cannot taken away by arbitrary state actions.
Court Criticizes Arbitrary State Actions
The Supreme Court’s judgment marked a stern rebuke against state authorities engaging in ‘bulldozer actions’ to punish individuals solely based on accusations.
The Court emphasized that such actions undermine the rule of law, which mandates that property cannot seized or demolished without legal recourse or judicial oversight.
The ruling clarified that while the executive has enforcement powers, it cannot act as a judge in determining guilt or punishment.
Justice Gavai, delivering the verdict, stated that the executive cannot assume the role of the judiciary in deciding guilt and imposing penalties.
The Court noted that the separation of powers is a foundational principle of India’s democratic system, and any violation of this principle, where the executive bypasses the judiciary, would lead to an erosion of trust in the justice system.
SC Limits ‘Bulldozer Justice’; Warns Against Extrajudicial Demolitions
The judgment also addressed growing concerns about the use of demolitions as a form of extrajudicial punishment, especially against marginalized and minority communities.
One of the petitions highlighted the increasing trend of demolitions targeting specific groups without following the legal framework, turning these actions into a form of collective punishment.
The petitioners argued that such demolitions are not only a violation of property rights but also a dangerous precedent that fosters an environment of fear and injustice.
In response, the Supreme Court underlined that any demolition of property in the absence of due process would deemed illegal. The Court also instructed that officials responsible for illegal demolitions must held accountable, with stringent action taken against those who violate the legal requirements.
Interim Orders Extended
In connection with the case, the Court extended its interim order barring the demolition of properties without judicial approval.
The order, initially issued on 17 September, had prohibited demolitions until 1 October, but it also clarified that unauthorized constructions on public roads and footpaths could still demolished.
The Court’s latest extension means no property demolition can occur without proper court authorization, except in cases of public safety hazards or illegal encroachments on government property.
This ruling aims to prevent a repeat of instances where authorities have used demolition as a form of punishment, particularly in politically sensitive cases or where marginalized groups are involved.
By enforcing strict procedural safeguards, the Court intends to ensure that the rule of law prevails over arbitrary state actions.
Also Read: RG Kar: Accused Claims Spark Governor’s Intervention In Junior Doctor’s Rape-Murder Case
