The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling on Wednesday, declared that the demolition of citizens’ properties without due process, solely based on suspected involvement in a crime, contravenes the rule of law. The Court also directed that officials responsible for such “high-handed actions” should be held accountable, issuing specific guidelines to be followed before any demolition is carried out.
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan, who underscored that the executive does not have the authority to act as judge and arbitrarily punish individuals by demolishing residential or commercial properties. “The executive cannot assume the role of judge and decide that a person is guilty, nor can it punish by demolishing properties. Such actions would exceed the executive’s authority,” the bench stated.
The Supreme Court was addressing a series of petitions challenging the use of property demolitions by state authorities as punitive measures against individuals allegedly involved in criminal activity. The bench ruled that demolishing a person’s home solely on accusations of crime, without judicial oversight, is contrary to the rule of law and that public officials who engage in such actions should face accountability.
Expressing strong criticism, the judgment remarked on “the chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building” without adherence to natural justice and due process, describing it as reminiscent of a “lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’.” The Court firmly stated that India’s constitutional framework, rooted in the rule of law, has no place for such arbitrary and excessive actions. It warned that officials acting outside legal limits must face “the heavy hand of the law.”
The bench also underscored that if the executive imposes penalties, such as property demolitions, on citizens merely on the grounds that they are accused, it undermines the principle of separation of powers. The justices emphasised that “the right to shelter is a fundamental aspect of Article 21,” adding that depriving citizens of this right is unconstitutional.
The ruling highlighted that even accused or convicted individuals possess rights and safeguards under constitutional provisions and criminal law. The state and its officials, the Court noted, cannot take arbitrary actions without following lawful processes, and accountability is essential when officials breach the rights of the accused or act negligently.
In addressing cases of demolitions for breaches of municipal laws, the Court acknowledged that while unauthorised constructions may require action, a nuanced approach is needed. “There may be cases where only part of a property needs removal, and a full demolition could be disproportionate,” the bench noted. It advised that authorities should ensure demolition is the last available option and consider other measures such as partial removal or fines.
To ensure transparency and fairness, the Court laid out binding directives, stating that public officials must avoid acting in arbitrary or discriminatory ways, with accountability measures applied to those who fail to comply. The ruling invoked the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142, establishing guidelines for pre-demolition procedures, including adequate notice periods and opportunities for affected parties to challenge orders.
The judgment stipulated that demolition orders should provide affected parties sufficient time to appeal or, for those accepting the order, to vacate and make arrangements. “No demolition should occur without prior notice, to be served either in line with local laws or within a 15-day timeframe from the notice date. Notices should be sent via registered post and visibly affixed on the property,” the Court ordered.
To avoid potential issues with backdated notices, the Court directed that once notices are served, the information must be digitally conveyed to the district magistrate, with an auto-acknowledgement system in place. Each district will appoint a nodal officer and designate an official email for all municipal demolition-related matters.
The Court clarified that these protections do not apply to illegal structures on public property, such as streets, footpaths, railway land, or water bodies nor in cases where demolition has been ordered by the judiciary.
Also Read: ‘Ensure Fairness’: CEC Kumar to Observers for Maharashtra Polls
