Sending a strong message against the trend of “bulldozer justice”, the Supreme Court New Guidelines

Bulldozer justice: Executive can’t become judge, demolish house of accused, SC says

The Supreme Court established strict guidelines to prevent authorities from demolishing properties without due process. The court emphasized that officials who illegally demolish homes will face consequences, and affected families will be compensated. The court stressed that India’s secular nature demands equal application of the law, regardless of religion.

Sending a strong message against the practice known as “bulldozer justice,” the Supreme Court ruled on November 13 that the executive cannot demolish the residences or properties of individuals solely based on their accusations or convictions in a crime.

The Court pointed out that permitting such actions by the executive undermines the rule of law and violates the principle of separation of powers, as it is the judiciary’s role to determine an individual’s guilt.

“The executive cannot declare a person guilty; this is a fundamental aspect of judicial review. If the executive were to demolish a property solely based on accusations, it would fundamentally violate the rule of law and due process. The executive cannot serve as judge and impose punishment by demolishing a person’s residence or business. This would step outside the boundaries of its authority.”

The imagery of a bulldozer demolishing a building without adherence to natural justice and due process evokes a sense of a lawless state, where “might was right.” Within our constitution, which is predicated on the ‘rule of law’, such arbitrary actions have no place. Any excesses by the executive must be addressed by the legal system. Our constitutional principles do not allow for such abuses of power, and these misadventures will not be condoned by the court.

The Court stressed that demolishing a house as punishment cannot be applied even to those convicted of a crime. Such actions, it stated, require due process as dictated by law.

“The executive’s action to demolish property without due process constitutes an arbitrary overreach and an abuse of legal authority. This represents the executive’s failure to adhere to the rule of law.”

Officials Responsible for Illegal Demolition to Face Consequences

The Court also ruled that public officials who engage in illegal demolition actions must be held accountable.

“Public officials who overstep their authority and act in such an arbitrary manner must face accountability,” the Court noted, underscoring the importance of restitution.

The Court highlighted that such actions amount to imposing “collective punishment” on the accused’s family. Moreover, when only certain properties are demolished, it raises suspicions of malice.

“When a structure is suddenly chosen for demolition while similar properties remain untouched, it suggests that the underlying motive is not the enforcement of law but rather punitive action without due process,” the Court remarked.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan issued the judgment in response to a batch of petitions from Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and others, seeking to halt the trend of “bulldozer justice.”

Guidelines Laid Out by the Court

The Court laid out specific procedures to be followed before any demolition.

Even after demolition orders are issued, the affected parties must be granted time to appeal the decision before the relevant authority. In cases where individuals choose not to contest the order, they require adequate time to vacate their premises.

“It is distressing to witness women, children, and elderly individuals being forcibly evicted overnight. Authorities would not face calamity if they delayed action temporarily,” the Court stated.

The Court clarified that these guidelines do not apply to unauthorized constructions in public domains such as roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies, nor in instances where a court has issued a demolition order.

Requirement for Prior Notice

No demolition should occur without a prior show-cause notice that complies with local municipal laws or is returnable within 15 days from receipt, whichever is later.

The notice must be sent via registered post and affixed to the outer portion of the structure. The 15-day period begins once the notice is received.

To prevent allegations of ante-dating, the Court mandated that notifications must be digitally communicated to the Collector/District Magistrate immediately after being served, along with a receipt acknowledgment from their office.

The District Magistrate is to assign a nodal officer with a specific email address for all officials involved in building regulations, to be communicated within one month.

The notice must describe the nature of unauthorized construction, specify particular violations, and outline the grounds for demolition. It should also provide a date for a personal hearing and indicate the designated authority.

Each municipal authority is required to establish a dedicated digital portal within three months of this judgment to document notices served, responses, hearings, and demolition orders.

Final Order and Personal Hearing

The designated authority must allow the affected party an opportunity for a personal hearing, recording the minutes of the meeting. The final order should detail the party’s contentions, the authority’s findings, and justifications for the proposed demolition.

Judicial Review of the Final Order

If the statute includes an appellate process, or even if it does not, no demolition order should be executed for 15 days following its receipt. The order must be made available on the designated digital portal.

Affected owners should be given a chance to rectify unauthorized construction. Only after this 15-day period, if the owner has not complied or if the appellate authority has not suspended the order, may demolition proceed.

Demolition Procedures

Only the portions of unauthorized construction that are not eligible for modification can be subjected to demolition.

Before any demolition takes place, a thorough inspection report must be generated by the authority.

All demolition activities will be recorded on video and preserved as evidence. A demolition report, including a list of police and civil personnel present during the process, should be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner and also uploaded to the digital portal.

Any failure to adhere to these directives may result in contempt proceedings and potential prosecution.

If a demolition is found contrary to the Court’s orders, responsible officers will be liable for restitution and damages at their personal expense.

A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all States/UTs and the Registrar Generals of all High Courts. All State Governments will issue directives informing relevant authorities of this judgment.

The Court acknowledged the contributions of Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, CU Singh, MR Shamshad, Sanjay Hegde, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Mohammed Nizam Pasha, Fouzia Sheikh, Rashmi Singh, as well as Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi for collating suggestions and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for delivering the case in an impartial and objective manner.

Background

To briefly summarize, orders concerning this matter were reserved on October 1, during which the bench made it clear that bulldozer actions could not be executed against the home of a convict, nor against individuals merely accused of crimes, as a punitive measure.

While the case was deliberated, the Court voiced its intention to set nationwide guidelines to ensure that local laws governing unauthorized constructions are not misused.

A series of petitions were filed with the Supreme Court in 2022 related to a planned demolition campaign in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri following violence during a Hanuman Jayanti procession. That demolition campaign was ultimately stayed; however, petitioners sought a court declaration preventing authorities from using bulldozer actions as punishment. Additional petitions were submitted against actions taken in several states, including MP, UP, and Gujarat.

In its argument, the State of Uttar Pradesh maintained that demolition cannot be justified simply due to an individual’s alleged involvement in a crime. Citing specific cases, it was stated that notices had been issued for violations, but the corresponding residents failed to respond, leading to demolitions in accordance with municipal laws.

In response, the Supreme Court emphasized that property cannot be demolished merely based on criminal allegations. The Court also expressed its intention to develop guidelines applicable across the country to address these concerns.

Parties involved were invited to submit draft recommendations for the Court’s consideration. Following this, Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind provided its suggestions.

On September 17, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court issued an interim order prohibiting any demolitions nationwide without its consent (except in cases of encroachment on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies).

Most recently, in the last ruling delivered by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, the Supreme Court declared that “bulldozer justice” is unacceptable in a society governed by the rule of law.

Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)