Shivanand Pandit
The use of property demolition as a punitive measure against alleged offenders represents a clear violation of the rule of law. In recent years, bulldozers have become a symbol of the state’s willingness to impose collective punishment, often following episodes of communal unrest. These demolitions, supported by Hindutva proponents on one side and defended by the government as efforts to remove “encroachments” on the other, have disproportionately targeted specific communities. This pattern has raised serious concerns about fairness and justice. In response, the Supreme Court of India has stepped in to curb the rising culture of impunity, issuing binding guidelines to ensure that demolitions follow due process and do not take place without proper legal procedures.
On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that state governments cannot demolish the property of individuals merely because they are accused or convicted of a crime. The court emphasized that the “executive cannot become a judge” and warned that any violation of due process would be met with the “heavy hand of the law.” It further stated that demolishing a person’s property solely based on an accusation would be “wholly unconstitutional,” as the right to shelter is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This intervention comes after a surge in demolitions, beginning with incidents in Khargone (Madhya Pradesh) and Jahangirpuri (Delhi) in 2022, and continuing in various regions over the past two years.
A Bench of Justices Gavai and Viswanathan emphasized that depriving innocent people of their right to life by demolishing their homes is fundamentally unconstitutional. “The executive cannot assume the role of a judge, declaring an individual guilty and punishing them by demolishing their residential or commercial properties,” the court observed. The remarks came during hearings on petitions challenging house demolitions carried out by state governments in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, where Muslim tenants were accused of offences that allegedly sparked communal tensions. The court further stated that such “bulldozer actions” represent a violation of the law, with state officials effectively taking matters into their own hands.
The court established guidelines to regulate demolitions, requiring a mandatory 15-day notice period for residents facing eviction. This notice must inform the affected individuals of the reasons for the demolition, and the scheduled hearing date to contest the order and provide time for them to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum. The court emphasized that failure by state officials to adhere to these guidelines could result in contempt proceedings, as well as compensation for the affected individuals. Additionally, those officials could be held responsible for the cost of rebuilding the demolished homes.
The court has outlined that demolition notices must detail the alleged violations and offer an opportunity for a personal hearing. It also directed the creation of a digital record to track notices, responses, and final decisions. Authorities are required to allow individuals time to remove unauthorized structures and conduct a thorough, video-recorded inspection before proceeding with demolitions. However, the court clarified that these directions do not apply to unauthorized structures located on public roads, streets, footpaths, near railway tracks, or along rivers or water bodies.
An excellent verdict
Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court of India took a firm stand against the growing menace of ‘bulldozer justice’, aiming to curb the unlawful practices adopted by several state governments. The Court’s intervention focused on the excessive use of force and state power to demolish properties, often under the guise of enforcing urban planning or anti-encroachment laws, but in reality, these actions often have targeted, political motivations, especially when aimed at marginalized communities. The states under scrutiny for such actions include Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Assam, Gujarat, Jharkhand, and Delhi, where these demolitions have been used to settle political scores and infringe upon citizens’ basic rights. The Supreme Court’s judgment highlighted three central issues that are critical in the effort to curb this practice.
Firstly, the Court underscored the importance of the rule of law as the foundation for any democratic society. It emphasized that the rule of law is a crucial safeguard against the arbitrary use of state power. In particular, the Court drew attention to the need to differentiate between the exercise of power in good faith and the misuse of power in bad faith. While governments do have the authority to take action in matters of urban development, anti-encroachment drives, or law enforcement, such powers must be exercised judiciously, without prejudice, and with proper legal and procedural safeguards in place. The Court cautioned that arbitrary actions based on political motivations not only violate the principles of justice but also undermine the trust of the people in the state’s ability to act fairly.
Secondly, the Supreme Court also pointed out a critical issue concerning the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive. The Court observed that in the current context, some state governments have been encroaching upon the judicial domain by unilaterally declaring individuals ‘guilty’ of various offences, often leading to the demolition of their properties. These decisions, the Court said, are often made without any due process of law, and thus the executive is stepping into the judicial role, undermining the principle of separation of powers. The Court made it clear that only the judiciary has the authority to pronounce someone guilty or impose punitive measures. The executive’s role is to enforce laws passed by the legislature, but it must do so within the limits defined by the Constitution and the law.
Thirdly, one of the most significant aspects of the Supreme Court’s ruling was its insistence on a mechanism for restitution of property. The Court stated that demolitions carried out without proper justification or due process should not only lead to penalties for the state but also require personal accountability from the officials involved. Specifically, it directed that such officials would be liable to pay for the restitution of demolished properties at their cost, in addition to compensation for any damages caused. This personal financial liability is a significant step towards ensuring that officials are not just protected by the state machinery but are directly accountable for their actions. The Court’s ruling reflected its intent to reduce the scope for arbitrariness in decision-making by placing financial responsibility on the shoulders of the public servants who authorize or carry out such demolitions. The Court further emphasized that collective punishment – where entire communities or groups are punished for the actions of a few individuals – is unacceptable. The practice of bulldozing homes, especially in cases where the individuals involved may not have had a direct role in any illegal activity, often affects innocent family members, particularly women and children, and violates the principle of individual rights and justice. The Court made it clear that no one should be punished collectively for the actions of others.
Challenges Ahead
While the Supreme Court’s order is a significant step towards upholding justice, the real challenge lies in its implementation. The big question remains: will state governments take the Court’s direction seriously and ensure that such arbitrary actions are curbed? The issue is compounded by the fear and timidity of government officials, many of whom are often reluctant to act against political leaders or parties for fear of retribution or losing their jobs.
The fact that bulldozer justice has become a politically charged tool in many states, particularly in instances where the demolition targets specific communities, such as the Muslim population in areas like Haryana’s Nuh, suggests that the practice has political underpinnings. The states using bulldozers in this way may see it not as a failure of governance but as a strategy to further their political or ideological agendas. In this context, the question is whether government officials will be more afraid of political bosses or judicial accountability.
The fear is that even if monetary restitution is imposed on the officials, the accountability mechanisms might be weak. Bureaucrats may find ways to circumvent personal liability, or pass the responsibility around, much like a football, ensuring that no one person is held accountable for the unjust actions. While the Supreme Court’s judgment is superb in its legal reasoning and intent, it may face significant challenges in achieving real change on the ground if the executive (the government machinery) remains reluctant to comply.
To conclude, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling represents a bold and much-needed intervention, aimed at addressing the misuse of political power to target vulnerable communities. The guidelines it has set forth, including the restitution of property and the imposition of personal liability on officials, are crucial steps in curbing the lawlessness associated with the controversial practice of bulldozer justice. However, the real test will lie in the execution of these directives by state governments and their officials. The Court has set a high standard, but the challenge will be whether political pressures and bureaucratic inertia will allow such practices to persist. The coming months will reveal whether this judgment proves to be more than just a symbolic gesture or a genuine turning point in the battle against the abuse of state power. Bulldozer justice, which had become a symbol of lawlessness and anarchy, undermines the very foundations of democracy, especially when Chief Ministers act like feudal lords and undermine the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court’s firm reaffirmation of natural justice – emphasizing that justice cannot be dispensed through bulldozers and that punishment without due process violates fundamental rights – has come as a breath of fresh air. By invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court has set clear guidelines for demolitions, including the requirement for prior notice and an opportunity for appeal. It is now imperative that governments strictly adhere to the constitutional principles laid out by the Court, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
The writer is a tax specialist, financial adviser, author, guest faculty and public speaker based in Goa. He can be reached at [email protected] or 9822983420
