Bulldozer Justice: Demolish a Person’s Property Merely Because they are Accused or Convicted of a Crime is Unconstitutional, says Supreme Court

Today (November 13, 2024), the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) pronounced the judgment in a batch of petitions seeking directions to stop ‘bulldozer justice’. The SC bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan held that the executive cannot demolish persons' houses/properties, without following the due process of law, merely because they are accused or convicted of a crime. It said, “If a citizen’s house is demolished merely because he is an accused or even for that matter a convict, that too without following the due process as prescribed by law, in our considered view, it will be totally unconstitutional for more than one reason. Firstly, the executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits.” 

The bench added, “The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’. In our constitution, which rests on the foundation of 'the rule of law', such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law.” The SC also said, “...such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law. Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law.” 

Moreover, the top court also addressed another aspect of the problem. It said that along with the accused, who lives in such property or owns such property, his spouse, children, parents live in the same house or co-own the same property. The bench questioned, “...can they be penalized by demolishing the property without them even being involved in any crime only on the basis of them being related to an alleged accused person?” The SC bench observed that punishing such persons who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house where they live or properties owned by them is nothing but anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution. It opined, “The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional.” 

While hearing the matter, the two-judge bench also said that the executive who acts as a judge and inflicts the penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused violates the principle of ‘separation of powers’. It opined that in such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions. Furthermore, the bench pointed out, “...when a particular structure is chosen all of a sudden for demolition and the rest of the similarly situated structures in the same vicinity are not even being touched, mala fide may loom large. In such cases, where the authorities indulge in arbitrary pick and choose of the structures and it is established that soon before initiation of such an action an occupant of the structure was found to be involved in a criminal case, a presumption could be drawn that the real motive for such demolition proceedings was not the illegal structure but an action of penalizing the accused without even trying him before the court of law.” 

Furthermore, the SC bench issued certain directions to be followed by the authorities so as to curb ‘bulldozer justice’. While listing the guidelines, the apex court said, “It is not a happy sight to see women, children, and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.” It added, “...these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.” The bench also informed that violation of any of the directions as mentioned in the judgment would lead to the initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution.