Top court cracks down on bulldozer justice by states

Describing a house as "an embodiment of the collective hopes of a family or individuals' stability and security", the Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down nationwide guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions by state authorities, marking a significant moment in the battle against what has come to be known as "bulldozer justice"-- the practice of razing the properties of people accused of crimes, and, sometimes, of their families, often using earthmovers or bulldozers, without following due process.

- Utkarsh Anand

The ruling by a bench comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan, and authored by the former, quoted Hindi poet Pradeep (famous for authoring Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon) "To have one's own home, one's own courtyard this dream lives in every heart.

It's a longing that never fades, to never lose the dream of a home" as it underlined the right to shelter as a fundamental part of the Indian Constitution, mandating strict procedural safeguards and highlighting that the executive cannot bypass the judicial process by demolishing properties linked to people alleged to have committed a crime.

"The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where 'might was right'. In our Constitution, which rests on the foundation of 'the rule of law', such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place," stated the judgment, warning that arbitrary executive actions would be subject to judicial scrutiny and penalties.

The ruling comes amid rising public concern over demolitions allegedly targeting specific groups and communities without following due process.

"When a particular structure is chosen for demolition, and the rest of the similarly situated structures are not even being touched, mala fide may loom large," it observed. This selective targeting, the bench maintained, could serve as an unconstitutional penalty rather than a legal enforcement of municipal codes.

By clarifying that the court directives will not apply to unauthorised constructions on public lands, such as roads, footpaths, and water bodies, or to demolitions ordered by a court of law, the Supreme Court sought to strike a balance between enforcing land use laws and safeguarding civil rights, while making it clear that the State must respect citizens' constitutional protections.