‘Officials will pay for demolitions from their salary’: 5 Key SC observations on ‘chilling’ side of ‘bulldozer justice’
The Supreme Court of India ruled against 'bulldozer justice,' stating demolitions based on accusations are unconstitutional. It mandated due process for demolitions and emphasized the importance of individual rights and accountability for public officials involved in unlawful actions.
The Supreme Court of India has made significant observations while delivering a verdict aimed at curbing the practice of 'bulldozer justice.' A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan emphasised that demolishing properties based on mere accusations is ‘unconstitutional’.
While pronouncing the verdict the apex court bench observed, “It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period”.
“Construction of a house is an aspect of socio-economic aspirations and is just not a property but symbolizes years of struggle and it gives a sense of dignity and if this right is taken away, then the authority has to satisfy that such a measure was the only last resort available.” Bar and Bench quoted the SC bench saying.
Here are the five critical observations made by the apex court:
1. Executive Power Must Be Restrained
The Supreme Court firmly stated that the executive must not overstep its bounds by acting as a judge and executing punitive measures such as demolitions. "The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty. Only on the basis of accusation, if the executive demolishes the property of the person, it will strike at the rule of law. The executive cannot become a judge and demolish the properties of the persons accused," Justice Gavai asserted.
He warned against arbitrary actions that erode the constitutional separation of powers and lead to a state of lawlessness.
2. Due Process Before Demolition
The Supreme Court outlined clear directives ensuring that no demolitions occur without due process.
The bench ordered, "No demolition be carried out without prior show cause notice and within 15 days from the date of the notice being served."
Additionally, it mandated that demolition proceedings be videographed for accountability and transparency.
The SC bench made it clear that its directions will not be applicable if there is unauthorised construction on public land or an order of demolition by the court of law.
3. Safeguarding the Rights of Accused
The Supreme Court bench emphasised the constitutional rights of individuals, even those accused or convicted. It noted, "The settled principle of criminal jurisprudence is that accused is innocent till proven guilty and if the structure is demolished, then it is collective punishment on all family members which cannot be allowed under the Constitution."
The bench made it clear that its directions will not be applicable if there is unauthorised construction on public land or an order of demolition by the court of law.
4. Accountability for High-Handed Officials
Highlighting the importance of oversight, the Court stated, "Public officials who take law into their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability..."
The apex Court warned that if these directions are flouted, the officials responsible will be liable for contempt of Court and prosecution. Such officers shall be held liable to restitute the demolished property at their own cost and also pay compensation, the top court said.
5. Protecting Individual Liberty, Upholding Rule of Law
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of safeguarding individual liberty as part of maintaining a constitutional democracy.
“When citizen has broken the law, the court has cast obligation upon State to maintain law and order and protect them from unlawful action. Failure to adhere to this can erode public confidence and can give way to lawlessness. However, protecting individual liberty is important for upholding constitutional democracy. We have held that arbitrary exercise of state power needs to be reigned in so that individuals know that their property shall not be taken away arbitrarily from them," the bench observed.
The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty. Only on the basis of accusation, if the executive demolishes the property of the person, it will strike at the rule of law.
The Court stressed that state power should be exercised lawfully to avoid eroding public trust and fostering lawlessness.
Key Takeaways
- Demolitions based on mere accusations violate constitutional rights.
- Due process is mandatory; no demolition can occur without prior notice.
- Public officials are held accountable for arbitrary demolitions, with potential personal liability.
Catch all the Business News , Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Business NewsNewsIndia‘Officials will pay for demolitions from their salary’: 5 Key SC observations on ‘chilling’ side of ‘bulldozer justice’
First Published:13 Nov 2024, 12:27 PM IST
- Top Gainers
- Top Losers
- 52 Week High