The Supreme Court of India in the hearing of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures ruled that demolishing a person’s home based on their alleged criminal history is unlawful and unconstitutional. The bench, comprising Justices B. R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan, emphasised that determining an individual’s guilt or innocence is the sole prerogative of the judiciary. The Supreme Court emphasised that the state cannot arrogate to itself the authority to mete out punishment in the form of property demolition. This decision reinforces the foundational principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.
The apex court unequivocally declared that state authorities lack the power to destroy homes or structures without adhering to due process. Such actions not only undermine legal principles but also violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. By exercising its powers under Article 142, which empowers the Court to ensure complete justice, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to curb the arbitrary demolition practices seen in several states.
Justice Gavai stated: “The state cannot act as a vigilante, replacing legal processes with arbitrary and punitive measures like bulldozer demolitions.” The judgement identified these actions as violations of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, dignity and shelter. The collective punishment inflicted on the families of the accused―often innocent of any wrongdoing―was condemned as an affront to the rule of law.
Demolitions carried out without a show cause notice or an opportunity for the property owner to defend themselves are unconstitutional, the Court emphasised. The bench mandated that before initiating demolition, authorities must issue a show cause notice, provide adequate time―no less than 15 days―for a response, and ensure procedural fairness. These measures are intended to prevent abuse of power and shield citizens from capricious actions by the executive.
The judgement also addressed the alarming trend of selective demolitions, particularly in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana. While the state governments have portrayed these demolitions as measures against unauthorised structures, the Court observed that they often appear to target minority communities, especially Muslims. This sectarian undertone, coupled with a disregard for procedural safeguards, exacerbates social divisions and undermines the secular fabric of the nation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contested these allegations, dismissing them as politically motivated narratives. However, the Court refrained from drawing conclusions on communal intent, focusing instead on the broader principle that the state must act within the bounds of law. The court said: “The executive cannot be both prosecutor and judge,” underscoring the need for separation of powers.
Demolition And The Right To Shelter
The Supreme Court highlighted that a home represents more than a physical structure; it symbolises stability, security and dignity. Destroying someone’s shelter—especially without lawful justification—violates their fundamental right to life. Citing Article 21, the judgement held that such demolitions constitute collective punishment, disproportionately harming families who may have no connection to the alleged crimes.
This principle resonates with earlier rulings of the Court, which have consistently held that the rule of law is the bedrock of a democratic society. In its judgement, the Court noted, “The government cannot operate as an agent of vengeance. Its duty is to uphold law and order, not to inflict arbitrary punishment.”
Nationwide Guidelines To Prevent Arbitrary Demolitions
The Supreme Court has introduced nationwide guidelines aimed to prevent arbitrary demolitions, ensuring that such actions are conducted within the framework of the law. These guidelines emphasise the importance of the due process, requiring authorities to issue a show cause notice specifying the reasons for demolition and allowing the affected individuals sufficient time to respond. Additionally, the guidelines mandate that no demolition should occur without providing an opportunity for a fair hearing. By enforcing these measures, the Court seeks to curb executive overreach, uphold the rule of law, and protect citizens' fundamental rights, particularly their right to shelter and dignity. This uniform directive ensures consistency across the country, promoting accountability and transparency in government actions.
Implications For Governance and Accountability
The judgement holds far-reaching implications for governance. It reinforces the doctrine of public trust, which obligates public officials to act in good faith and for the public benefit. The Court warned that officers who engage in unlawful demolitions or misuse their powers will be held accountable. Compensation for victims of such actions may be recovered directly from the salaries of the erring officials.
Furthermore, the Court underscored the importance of transparency and non-discrimination in state actions. Public officials, it said, must adhere to the highest standards of fairness and integrity, failing which they risk undermining the constitutional order.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a resounding affirmation of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. By curbing the practice of punitive demolitions, the Court has reinforced the foundational values of Indian democracy: fairness, equality, and accountability. This judgement serves as a reminder that in a democracy, no individual—whether accused or convicted—is outside the protection of the law. As India grapples with challenges to its democratic ethos, this verdict serves as a beacon of hope for the protection of individual rights and the preservation of constitutional values.
(The author is a legal researcher)
(Views expressed are personal)
