Once again, the door of the Supreme Court has been knocked, against the bulldozer justice, or instant justice, which is being carried by some states.

Justice B.R. Gavai, leading a division bench with Justice K.V. Viswanathan, stated that the law does not allow for the demolition of anyone's home simply on the suspicion that the person is accused of a crime and it can also not happen in the case of a conviction.

The bench has expressed its intention to establish consistent guidelines for demolishing illegal constructions to prevent any misuse of municipal rules.

Collective Punishment: Unjustified

When the government demolishes the houses of the accused before they are declared guilty by a court of law, it violates the fundamental principles of the justice system. Bulldozing the homes of the accused without giving them a chance to defend themselves and without proving their guilt goes against the principles of natural justice, "innocent until proven guilty" and "Audi alteram partem" which state that everyone is innocent until proven guilty by the last court of the country.

The concept of collective punishment is not recognized by the constitution of India or any civilised society. "The government cannot simply shrug off by saying that if a person has committed an offence, in retaliation, I will commit another offence of bulldozing the houses of the accused person. After all, states are governed by the rule of law, and in law, there is no such term in entire jurisprudence as bulldozer justice.

Article 300A of the constitution states, "No person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of the law." Therefore, a person cannot be deprived of their movable and immovable property except with the authority of the law. In the judgement of K.T.Plantation(P) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, (2011) the hon'ble Court held that the legislation providing for deprivation of property under Article 300-A must be just, fair, and reasonable" as understood in terms of Article 14, 19, 26, and 30.

Demolitions are only permissible under certain circumstances in municipal laws, which are governed by the laws of the state. Proper procedures must be followed before any demolition can take place.

Article 87(3) of the Geneva Convention expressly prohibits collective punishments. As a result, these demolitions are seen as a violation of Article 87(3) of the Geneva Convention, as well as a violation of Article 51(3) of the Constitution of India, which states that India is under an obligation to respect international treaties and laws.

In the landmark case of Olga Tellis & Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors,(1985), the Supreme Court unequivocally established that the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution inherently encompasses not only the right to life but also the right to livelihood, shelter, and a dignified life. The Court emphatically declared that any infringement upon one's livelihood without due process is a violation of constitutional rights.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), The supreme court held that the phrase used in Article 21 is "procedure established by law" instead of "due process of law." This means that the procedures must be free from arbitrariness and irrationality. In simpler terms, this means that the procedures should be just, fair, and non-arbitrary.

If a person is accused or charged with certain offences, and there is a law that specifies the punishment, only that prescribed punishment is permissible under the law. The court does not have the power to impose a punishment other than what has been justified under the law. Therefore, merely on the basis of some apprehension that the accused is guilty of the crime, the government cannot demolish their homes in the name of instant justice. Bulldozer justice takes away the entire plethora of laws that are there to protect citizens.

Justice at What Cost:

India's judicial system operates on the principle that no innocent person should ever be held guilty for something they have not done. There are various laws and regulations that govern illegal construction. If the construction is illegal, then it must be demolished. However, the government cannot simply walk in and demolish the house without providing the accused with the opportunity to exhaust all available legal remedies. Before demolishing any property, the proper judicial and executive processes must be followed.

Many years back the apex court observed that "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied".People often celebrate instant justice, believing that it brings about fairness. The government may seek to deliver instant justice to create the illusion in the public's mind that justice has been served promptly.

However, there is a problem if the government demolishes a person's house based solely on suspicion, and then the person is later acquitted in court. What does the government do in such a case, considering that bulldozing something is an irreversible act? The state often gets carried away with emotion, sometimes mirroring criminal behaviour. Homes are needlessly demolished without consideration for the innocent family members who may have no involvement in the offence

India is a country where even those who commit the rarest of crimes have the right to a fair trial. Even Kasab had the opportunity for a fair trial in this country. India has a complete set of laws to deal with criminal acts. The state can't behave like a criminal. The state cannot appropriate draconian powers to itself under the facade of dispensing justice.

Providing justice is the sole domain of the Judiciary and should not be taken over by the state under any circumstances. Although the Indian constitution is framed in a way that the state cannot take away from a judge the right to decide whether to award punishment, which punishment to award is the sole domain of the judiciary.

Before demolishing homes, the state must ponder the irreversible consequences and the irretrievable losses. Some wounds may never heal, and some losses can never be restored.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Pranav Kumar Pandey, 2nd year student of B.A.LL.B(Hons), University of Lucknow

Authentication No: SP426199280470-17-0924