Supreme Court judgement on “Bulldozer Justice”

Source: This post on Supreme Court judgement on “Bulldozer Justice” has been created based on the article “Supreme Court puts brakes on ‘bulldozer culture’” published in The Hindu on 14th November 2024.

Why in news?

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment condemning the use of bulldozers by state authorities to demolish the homes of individuals accused of criminal offenses.

The court criticized the practice as an illegal and arbitrary display of power, issuing detailed directives to ensure accountability and protect due process.

Supreme Court’s Directives for Demolition Procedures

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to establish binding guidelines for state authorities to address concerns over arbitrary demolitions.

i) Notice Requirements:  Authorities must provide at least 15 days’ notice before demolishing a property.

ii) Detailed Notice: The notice must specify the nature of the unauthorized construction, particular violations, and grounds for demolition.

iii) Opportunity to Respond: Owners or occupants should have a fair chance to contest the demolition before a designated authority.

iv) Reasoned Order: Final demolition orders must include reasoned conclusions. The demolition process must be recorded.

v) Consequences of Non-compliance: Violations of these guidelines could lead to contempt charges, prosecution, and restitution liabilities for responsible officials.

The court clarified that these directives would not apply to encroachments on public property or demolitions ordered by a court.

SC observations on “Collective Punishment”

Justice B.R. Gavai noted that demolishing homes as a form of “collective punishment” violated the rule of law:

i) Innocent Parties Affected: Family members, such as spouses and children, should not be penalized through demolitions without any involvement in criminal activities.

ii) Violation of Basic Rights: Destroying homes infringes on the constitutional right to life, which includes the right to shelter and dignity.

iii) Presumption of Innocence: The court emphasized that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Emphasis on “Rule of Law” and “Separation of Powers”

1. Role of Judiciary: The judiciary, not the State, is empowered to determine guilt or innocence. The State cannot unilaterally impose excessive punishment, even on convicted individuals.

2. Institutional Accountability: Arbitrary exercise of power by public officials, including punitive demolitions, should be subject to judicial review.

3. Standard for Selective Demolitions: If a single property is targeted for demolition while similar nearby structures remain untouched, this could indicate malicious intent.

4. The judgment underscored the value of home ownership, stating that for many, a home is a result of years of hard work. A house represents stability, security, and future aspirations. Authorities should only consider demolition if no other alternatives exist.

UPSC Syllabus: Polity and nation