Supreme Court comes down heavily on 'Bulldozer Justice', said officers cannot become judges, see details

Giving a strong message against the new trend of 'Bulldozer Justice', the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that a person's house cannot be demolished only on the basis that he is accused or guilty of a crime.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has also given guidelines for demolishing properties in the country.

Justice BR Gavai, who was part of the bench, said, "Usually a citizen builds a house after years of hard work, dreams for it, has many aspirations."

The Supreme Court said, "The government or the administration cannot hold a person guilty. If the government demolishes the property of the person concerned on the basis of mere allegations, then it is an attack on the rule of law. Government officials cannot become judges and cannot demolish the properties of the accused."

He said, "Demolishing properties with bulldozers is a state of anarchy. Such acts have no place in a constitutional democracy. Our Constitution does not approve of such acts."

The Supreme Court has also said, "The government officials who are taking the law into their own hands and doing such things should be held responsible."

The Supreme Court emphasized that accountability must be established for public officials who act with excessive authority, especially when they bypass legal procedures. The Court stated that government officials and the State cannot implement arbitrary or heavy-handed actions against citizens. “If any officer of the State abuses their power or acts in an arbitrary or malicious manner, they cannot go unpunished,” the ruling declared.

Selective demolitions

Justice B.R. Gavai highlighted concerns regarding selective demolitions, noting that when a particular property is chosen for sudden demolition while similar structures remain untouched, it may suggest an underlying motive beyond removing illegal construction. Such actions, he stated, could amount to “punishing without trial.”

Home is the product of years of hard work

The Court further underscored the significance of a home for an average citizen, describing it as the product of “years of hard work, dreams, and aspirations.” A home embodies the collective hope for security and future stability. Thus, if the State aims to take this away, officials must convincingly demonstrate that demolition is the only viable option.

Akin to anarchy 

The Court questioned whether authorities can rightfully demolish a house, thereby depriving its inhabitants of shelter, if only one resident faces accusations. It warned that demolishing a home or property owned by individuals unconnected to any alleged crime is akin to “anarchy” and infringes upon the constitutional right to life. The bench emphasized that every individual—whether accused, undertrial, or convicted—retains rights similar to any other citizen, including the right to dignity and protection from inhuman treatment. The punishment for any crime, the Court reminded, must follow due process and be neither cruel nor inhumane.

An accused individual cannot be presumed guilty

The bench reinforced that an accused individual cannot be presumed guilty “unless proven so beyond reasonable doubt before a court of law.” The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are fundamental, the Court stated.

Is might right?

The Supreme Court described the image of a bulldozer demolishing a building, without adherence to due process, as emblematic of “a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right.’” Such “high-handed and arbitrary actions,” the Court emphasized, have no place within the framework of the Constitution.

In a decisive move, the Supreme Court issued specific guidelines under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure that due process is followed in demolition cases. The Court mandated that no demolition may proceed without issuing a show cause notice. The individual served with the notice must have at least 15 days to respond, or a longer period if specified by local civic laws.