Recently, the Supreme Court criticized the practice of "bulldozer justice," emphasizing the recent trend of demolishing properties based on criminal allegations against the accused or their family violating the rule of law.

What Is Bulldozer Justice

It refers to the ultra-virus (beyond the legal authority) demolition of the properties of those accused of crimes, often causing harm to their families and administrated by bulldozers. The purpose of this Large-scale demolition is to provide collective punishment for rioters. "Bulldozer justice" refers to the use of bulldozers and heavy machinery to demolish the properties of those accused of crimes, without due legal process. It symbolizes instant punitive action by the state executives, bypassing judicial adjudication and procedural safeguards.

Background Of The Case
The case involved a series of petitions challenging the "extra-legal" practice of demolishing houses of individuals accused of criminal activities in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand.

The recent ruling was prompted by incidents in Udaipur, Rajasthan, and Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, earlier this year.

The bulldozer action that started in Delhi's Jahangirpuri in 2022 has now spilled over to different parts of the country. The violence that ensued in Nuh, Haryana in 2023, due to a clash between two religious groups, ended with the local administration demolishing many homes in the neighborhood. Communal riots in Madhya Pradesh's Khargone also resulted in the demolition of houses and businesses owned by Muslims who were deemed to be 'alleged rioters'.In each of these cases, the demolition is justified under municipal laws on account of:

• Action against encroachment or
• Under the pretext of unauthorized construction

Bulldozer Justice In Various States

• Rajasthan: Under provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, authorities can confiscate properties that encroach public land, provided they serve a written notice with grounds for confiscation and allow a chance for representation.
• MP: The MP Municipalities Act allows the demolition of unauthorized constructions only after serving notice to owners.
• UP: The UP Urban Planning and Development Act mandates that an owner receive a minimum notice period of 15 days before the demolition of unauthorized structures. The owner can appeal the order, but once finalized, it cannot be contested in court.
• Delhi: The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act allows the removal of unauthorized structures with "reasonable opportunity" for the owner to appeal.
• Haryana: The Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, similar to Delhi's DMC Act, provides owners a brief period to challenge demolitions but has a shorter window (3 days) to comply with demolition orders.
   

Concerns Regarding Bulldozer Justice:

• Violation of Rule of Law: Bulldozer justice has bypassed various essential legal procedures like prior notice and proper opportunity to be heard. This practice bypasses due process requirements outlined in Supreme Court judgments such as Sudama Singh & Ors. Vs Government of Delhi and Ajay Maken & Ors vs Union of India.
• Rising Punitive Demolitions: A 2024 estimate by the Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) found that authorities demolished 153,820 homes in 2022 and 2023, displacing over 738,438 people across rural and urban areas.
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 17 of the ICCPR states that everyone has the right to own property individually or with others, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property.
• Collective Punishment: The Supreme Court acknowledged that demolition drives not only target the alleged perpetrators of an offense but also impose a form of "collective punishment" on their families by destroying their place of dwelling.
• Instant Justice: Demolitions have been justified as actions against encroachment or unauthorized construction. Such state-sanctioned acts of punitive violence have been hailed as a form of instant justice.
• Breach of Fundamental Rights: It has also violated the right to shelter and right to dignity which is protected by the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Presumption of Innocence: Penalizes individuals before being proven guilty in a court of law. Thus if they are proven innocent, there's not much the court can provide as a remedy against such arbitrary action of the state.
• Targeting minorities: Reports of disproportionate action against various communities, have raised questions of communal bias.
• Authoritarian Practices: Undermines democratic governance, consolidating power with the executive.
• Ethical Concerns: Punishes entire families, and conflates roles of judge, jury, and executioner. Family members, such as spouses and children, should not be penalized through demolitions without any involvement in criminal activities.

Guidelines Laid Down By The Supreme Court Under Article 142 Of The Constitution

The Supreme Court in the Demolition of Structures v. and Ors case judgment laid down a series of guidelines to ensure that due process is followed for demolishing the properties of citizens. The guidelines laid down by the SC place emphasis on transparency and giving the accused and their family sufficient time to handle their affairs. The SC clarified that the guidelines will not apply to "an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law".

• Providing Notice: A minimum of 15 days' notice must be given to the property owner or occupier before any demolition can proceed. The notice must clearly outline the details of the structure to be demolished and the reasons for demolition.
• Fair Hearing: A scheduled date for a personal hearing to provide an opportunity for the affected party to contest the demolition or clarify the situation.
• Transparency: Authorities must notify the local Collector or District Magistrate via email upon serving the notice, with an auto-reply acknowledgment to avoid claims of backdating or tampering.
• Issuance of Final Order: The final order must include the owner's or occupier's arguments, the authority's justification for demolition as the only option, and whether the entire or partial structure is to be demolished.
• Post-Final Order Period: If a demolition order is issued, the Supreme Court mandates a 15-day period before implementation, allowing the owner or occupier to remove the structure or challenge the order in court.
• Documentation of Demolition: The authority must record the video of demolition and prepare an "inspection report" beforehand, along with a "demolition report" listing the personnel involved.
• Test for Dual Violations: The SC laid down a separate test for cases where a demolished property houses an accused but also violates municipal laws as an illegal construction. The SC stated that if only one structure is demolished while similar ones are untouched, it may suggest the motive is to penalize the accused, not remove an illegal construction.

Exception: SC clarified that its directions will not be applicable if there are any unauthorized structures in any public place such as roads, streets, or footpaths, abutting railway lines, or any river or water body and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law.

Rationale Behind Above Guidelines

Separation Of Powers: The verdict stresses that the judiciary is entrusted with "adjudicatory" (decision-making) powers to decide if an accused person is guilty, and whether any of the organs of the state have "transgressed" their limits. The judiciary then asks, "Can the officers of the State Government take upon themselves the adjudicatory function and without a person undergoing a trial be inflicted with a punishment of demolition of his properties." It would be "wholly impermissible" for the state to decide that demolition can be a punishment for an accused person, according to the SC. It said, "The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core functions"

Collective Punishment: Justice B.R. Gavai noted that demolishing homes as a form of "collective punishment" violated the rule of law:

1. Innocent Parties Affected: Family members, such as spouses and children, should not be penalized through demolitions without any involvement in criminal activities.
    
2. Violation of Basic Rights: Destroying homes infringes on the constitutional right to life, which includes the right to shelter and dignity.
    
3. Presumption of Innocence: The court emphasized that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
    
4. Public Trust & Transparency: The SC said public officials must be held accountable for both their actions and inactions. Officials who "take the law in their hands" and pass demolition orders on the ground that the owner or occupier of the property is an accused "should be made accountable for such high-handed actions," according to the court.
    
5. The SC also said the guidelines are necessary to ensure that the government acts in a "transparent" manner and hold them accountable when they don't.
    
6. Right to Shelter: The SC noted that the accused is not the only one who lives or owns such properties. It highlighted that the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to shelter. Depriving this right of the other innocent people living in the same house as the accused would be "wholly unconstitutional," according to the SC.
    
7. Protection of Individual Rights: The Court's insistence on due process and the separation of powers protects individuals from arbitrary state actions and ensures that rights are not violated under the guise of law enforcement.
    
8. Geneva Convention 1949: Article 87(3) of the Geneva Convention 1949 prohibits collective punishments.
    
9. Such demolitions also violate Article 51 of the Indian Constitution which mandates that India must respect international treaties and laws.
    
10. Other Judicial Pronouncements Related to Property Demolitions:
    • Maneka Gandhi Case, 1978: The SC expanded the scope of "procedure established by law" by ruling that it must be just, fair, and reasonable, thereby introducing the principle of "due process of law." Therefore, demolitions based on suspicion or unfounded allegations contradict the principles of justice, fairness, and non-arbitrariness.
    • Olga Tellis Case, 1985: The Supreme Court affirmed that Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life, also includes the right to livelihood and shelter. It means demolishing homes without due process violates constitutional rights.
    • KT Plantation (P) Ltd Case, 2011: SC ruled that the legislation providing for the deprivation of property under Article 300-A must be just, fair, and reasonable.
       
11. Challenges in the Implementation of SC Guidelines:
    • Reliance on Political Will: The political pressures to use demolition as a form of retribution or deterrence could persist, especially in politically charged environments.
    • Culture of Impunity: While the guidelines impose accountability on officials, historical examples, such as the court's previous attempts to address issues like hate speech or mob lynching, suggest that similar efforts have not always led to substantial outcomes or accountability.
    • Lack of Oversight: There remains a risk that local authorities or officials may find ways to circumvent these rules, especially in regions where judicial oversight is weaker.
    • Long-Term Cultural Change: The guidelines alone may not be sufficient to change the broader cultural and institutional practices that allow for such actions in the first place.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruling on bulldozer justice is a positive step towards upholding constitutional rights. However, continued vigilance and strict ground-level implementation of the guidelines are needed to prevent arbitrary demolitions and protect citizens' dignity.

References:

• https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/what-supreme-court-said-about-bulldozer-justice-9668571/
• https://www.insightsonindia.com/2024/11/14/bulldozer-justice/
• https://www.shankariasparliament.com/blogs/pdf/bulldozer-justice
• https://www.drishtiias.com/state-pcs-current-affairs/bulldozer-justice
• https://forumias.com/blog/supreme-court-judgement-on-bulldozer-justice/

Written By: Shaista Waseem, a law student at Unity P.G. and Law College.