The Supreme Court of India has set clear guidelines for property demolitions, responding to the recent rise in "bulldozer justice" cases, where authorities have demolished properties without following legal steps. The Court firmly stated that government agencies cannot act as judges and punish citizens by demolishing their properties without due legal process. These demolitions, often used as punishment against alleged offenders, have raised concerns for violating the Constitution’s principle of "separation of powers”.
In its detailed judgment, the Supreme Court stressed that demolishing properties without notice or a fair hearing contravenes the rule of law and natural justice principles. Describing such actions as “chilling,” the Court noted that bulldozing properties arbitrarily reflects a lawless state where "might is right," an approach that has no place in a democratic setup based on constitutional values. The bench, consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, criticized the high-handedness of local authorities who have ignored due process and left families homeless overnight, underlining that the Constitution does not permit such misuse of power.
New Guidelines for Demolition of Properties
The Supreme Court’s ruling includes a set of new guidelines that municipal and state authorities across India must follow before demolishing any property. These measures aim to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to the due process of law. Key guidelines include:
1. Show Cause Notice Requirement: Before demolishing any property, authorities must issue a show-cause notice to the affected party. This notice must allow at least 15 days for the property owner or occupier to respond, as per local municipal regulations or the extended period stipulated by the Court.
2. Right to Challenge the Demolition Order: The Court emphasized that individuals should have the right to challenge demolition orders in an appropriate forum. For those who choose not to contest the decision, sufficient time should be provided to vacate the premises and manage their belongings. As Justice Gavai stated, “Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period,” underscoring the need for compassion and patience.
3. Clear Justification for Demolition: Authorities must provide specific details in the demolition notice, including the nature of unauthorized construction, the particular violations, and the grounds for demolition. Additionally, authorities must explore less severe alternatives before deciding on demolition. The final order should state why demolition is necessary and explain why alternative actions, such as partial demolition or regularization, are insufficient.
4. Documentation and Transparency: The notice must be served to the property owner via registered post, and a copy should be posted visibly on the property itself. To prevent any allegations of backdating, authorities must digitally notify the concerned District Magistrate or Collector’s office once the notice is served. The collector will designate a nodal officer and a dedicated email to streamline this communication, ensuring transparency and accountability.
5. Personal Hearing: The Court also emphasized that the affected parties should be granted a personal hearing before the final decision. This measure aligns with principles of natural justice, allowing individuals the opportunity to present their case directly to the decision-makers. The final decision must reflect the arguments of the affected party and explain why they were or were not accepted.
6. Mandatory Videography: To maintain a record of the demolition proceedings, the Court mandated that all such actions be videographed. This measure will serve as evidence in case of disputes and uphold transparency in the demolition process.
While these guidelines aim to curtail misuse of power, the Supreme Court clarified that they will not apply to cases where a structure is unauthorized and located on public land such as roads, sidewalks, railways, rivers, or water bodies. Similarly, properties facing demolition orders from a court of law are not covered by these new guidelines.
The ruling also reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers, where the executive is distinct from the judiciary. The Supreme Court criticized instances where the executive has taken it upon itself to demolish properties as a form of punishment, effectively bypassing the judiciary’s role in adjudicating guilt or innocence. By issuing this ruling, the Court aims to curb the executive’s tendency to act as judge, jury, and executioner, a role it explicitly stated goes beyond the boundaries set by the Constitution.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Court to pass orders necessary to deliver complete justice in cases before it. This Article grants the judiciary authority to issue directions that can ensure justice is served, especially when other mechanisms might fail to uphold citizens’ rights. The Court’s use of Article 142 underscores its commitment to protecting citizens from arbitrary state actions.
The Court’s guidelines are designed to reduce fear and uncertainty among citizens caused by arbitrary demolitions. By setting clear rules, the Court intends to prevent the misuse of state power and protect citizens' right to due process. It also warned that any failure to follow these guidelines could result in contempt of court and other legal actions against the officials involved.
This ruling serves as a reminder that the rule of law is paramount in a democracy. Arbitrary demolitions not only harm individuals but also erode public trust in government institutions. The Supreme Court’s guidelines ensure that the demolition process becomes more structured and that government authorities remain accountable for their actions. Through this decision, the Court has reinforced the idea that India’s governance framework must respect due process and protect individual rights.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on property demolitions underscores the importance of governance rooted in justice and compassion. As cities grow and local authorities tackle the challenges of urban management, there is an undeniable need to address unauthorized constructions and enforce regulations. However, the Court’s decision emphasizes that, even under these conditions, authorities must operate within the law and uphold citizens' rights. Setting guidelines that ensure due process, the Court reinforces the idea that justice should not be compromised for the sake of quick solutions. This decision marks a crucial move toward a fairer and more transparent approach to urban governance in India.
