Bulldozer Justice and Related Issues

Context:

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment has held the process of demolition of property by the state authorities as a punishment for the alleged involvement of the property owner in a crime as contrary to the rule of law. Also, the court has also issued guidelines for the demolition of property in such cases in future.

Background:

• The recent case relates to petitions in which the illegal process of demolition of houses of those accused of criminal activities was challenged.
  • This process was called bulldozer justice by former Indian judge D.Y. Chandrachud. This practice has been seen in some states in the past years.
• The recent decision of the Supreme Court was taken in the wake of incidents in Udaipur, Rajasthan and Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh in early 2024.
  • Jamiat-Ulama-e-Hind had also filed a petition in the year 2022 amid the demolition drive carried out in Delhi's Jahangirpuri following communal violence.

Recent decision of the Supreme Court:

• Contrary to the rule of law: According to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, demolishing the properties of citizens without following due process just because they may be involved in a crime is contrary to the rule of law.
• Accountability of officials: The court has directed that the officials involved in such extreme action should be made accountable.

Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court:

• The Supreme Court has also issued guidelines that should be followed before demolishing private properties.
• The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court emphasize transparency and give the accused and his family enough time to settle their matters.
• Where these guidelines will not apply: The Supreme Court clarified that these guidelines will not apply to any unauthorized structure in any public place, such as road, street, footpath, railway line or any river or water body and will also not apply in cases where demolition has been ordered by the court.

Key highlights of the guidelines:

• Serving notice: The Supreme Court has said that a person should be given a notice at least 15 days in advance to respond before demolition of a property, starting from the date on which the owner or occupant receives the notice.
  • This notice should include details of the structure, why it is being demolished and a date for a personal hearing to allow owners to oppose the demolition.
  • The Supreme Court said that as soon as the notice is served, the local collector or district magistrate should be informed through email. Also, there should be a provision for automatic acknowledgement of receipt of email to prevent any allegation of retrospective action.
• Hearing and final order: The final order after the hearing must contain certain information along with the details of the proceedings being properly recorded. 
  • This includes the arguments given by the owner or occupier, why the authority (such as the local municipal corporation) believes the matter cannot be settled and whether the entire construction or only a part is to be demolished.
  • The Supreme Court said that reasons such as ‘why the extreme step of demolition is the only option’ should also be mentioned.
• Consequences: If the authority passes a final order for demolition and the owner or occupier of the property receives the order, ‘the order shall not be enforced for a period of 15 days’.
  • This gives the owner or occupier the right to either remove the construction or challenge the final order in court and obtain a stay order.
  • At the end of this second 15-day period if the final demolition order has not been stayed and the construction has not been removed, demolition can be carried out.
• Demolition report mandatory: The authority must video record the demolition and prepare a demolition report along with an ‘inspection report’ before demolition and a list of personnel involved in the demolition process.

Supreme Court’s reasoning behind the guidelines:

• Violation of fundamental rights: According to the Supreme Court, when the property of an accused person is demolished illegally, his fundamental, constitutional and legal rights are violated.
• Separation of powers: The judgment emphasised that the judiciary has been entrusted with ‘judicial’ (decision-making) powers to decide whether an accused person is guilty and whether any organ of the state has exceeded its limits.
  • According to the judiciary, can state government officials exercise judicial functions on their own and can a person be punished by demolishing his property without any trial.
  • ‘It would be totally unacceptable for the state to decide that demolition can be a punishment for an accused person. The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core functions’.
• Public trust and transparency: The Supreme Court said that government officials should be held accountable for their actions as well as inactions.
  • According to the court, officials who take the law into their own hands should be made accountable for such arbitrary actions.
• Right to shelter: The Supreme Court said that the accused is not the only person who lives in or owns such properties.
  • It highlighted that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution also includes the right to shelter. 
  • According to the Supreme Court, it would be totally unconstitutional to deprive other innocent people living in the same house with the accused of this right.
• Judgment on demolished property: To address cases where the demolished property is the residence of the accused but also violates municipal laws in the form of illegal construction, the Supreme Court has laid down a different test.
  • According to the Court, when a particular structure is suddenly selected for demolition and other similar structures situated in the vicinity are not even touched, it can be presumed that the real purpose was to punish the accused and not to remove the illegal construction.