The Supreme Court of India in an important recent verdict, has sternly condemned the destruction of properties by state forces without due process. The apex court ruled that demolitions that have come to be branded as “bulldozer justice,” carried out solely on suspicion of criminality by the owner himself, are illegal. This judgment passed by the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan acts as a step for strengthening the rule of law, which keeps officials responsible for actions attempting to bypass judicial oversight and rights of citizens being infringed.

Important Takeaways from the Judgment of Supreme Court

The judgment of the Supreme Court is an excellent pointer on the issues related to the misuse of powers of the executive regarding demolitions of properties. 

It would be worthwhile to read on the important points dealt by the court.

The court further emphasized that the executive can’t play the role of a judge and come to a determination of guilt and punishment through demolition of property. According to the bench, these actions are a blatant violation of the most fundamental principle of separation of powers. This is the first tenet of democratic governance. When the executive demolishes a property as a penalty without leading the legal processes involved, it surpasses its limits.

• Due Process is Compulsory: The high court held that demolition of properties without strict due process is unconstitutional and violative of the rule of law. Even persons accused of crimes have rights protected by the Constitution. Property demolitions, the court said, must only be made after the proper legal processes, in which affected parties must be afforded equal opportunities to question the orders.
• Impact on Right to Shelter: Relying on Article 21, which has protected the right to life and personal liberty, it made it clear that courts have sounded a grave consequence for those who pull down houses. That this pulls the shelter from the residents, even an innocent citizen, would be an invasion of their elementary rights for which no justification exists in law. Even a thief or dacoit has a residuary meagre protection under law; hence, their rights too have to be respected.
• Accountability of Public Officials: In this judgment, the bench further clarified that demolitions by officials through arbitrary procedures must be accountable. It is a task for the courts to check high-handed actions by public officials and prevent them from running amok. The court has noted that bulldozer demolitions, when carried out in utter disregard for the rule of law, manifest a perilous “lawless state of affairs“ and badly deteriorate public trust.

Principles of Natural Justice: The court emphasized the fact that natural justice requires an open and reasonable act from the authorities. It compared the bulldozers operation without notice to “might is right.” Such acts cannot be tolerated as the operations will confirm exactly opposite to democracy under the rule of law.

Directives of the Supreme Court

The court has produced specific directives to regulate the demolition process and protect the rights of citizens. Some of the same are given in the next subsection.

• Notice Period and Opportunity to Challenge: No demolition can be done without prior notice. The parties affected by it shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to challenge the demolition order, whether it is under local law or within fifteen days, whichever is longer. Notice shall be serviced registered mail with acknowledgment receipt and a copy conspicuously displayed at the outer part of the property.

• Digital Records to Prevent Tampering: In order to prevent the allegations of backdating, the court ordered that once a notice is served, authorities shall send a digital record of it to the office of the collector or district magistrate. This will ensure getting automated acknowledgment for its receipt.

• Appoint Nodal Officer: Each district shall appoint a nodal officer and allocate an e-mail address within one month for matters concerning building regulations and demolitions which shall form part of the blueprint and facilitate clear accountability.
  The court also encouraged authorities to consider alternatives other than complete demolition. In cases where part of the construction contravenes local laws, the authorities should either opt for partial demolition or compounding-the legalizing of the construction either through fines or amendments. It takes demolition as an extreme measure, reserved when no alternative seems possible.
  

Exceptions in the Judgment of Supreme Court

While issuing these directives, the Supreme Court also admitted that its directives shall not be applicable in some cases. Where unauthorized constructions on public property are constructed in the form of roads, paths for pedestrians, railway tracks, or water bodies, these shall not receive any applicability from the directives so issued. Further, the requisites of these directives are not to be followed in cases where demolition is ordered directly by a court.

Maintaining the Rule of Law by Supreme Court

This is a landmark ruling in ensuring that the principles of democratic governance are upheld while ensuring that the judiciary is properly positioned to enforce accountability by the executive. The demolitions, as based on mere allegations, avoid due process and, in effect, serve punishment before trial, a practice outright opposed to the Supreme Court.

The verdict also aligns with the increasing voice of the discussion on state accountability in India. Needless demolitions are often criticized for how sudden the demolitions turn out to be and the trauma that they entail for the family, more so the weak and vulnerable ones like women and children who overnight might get uprooted. The judicial pronouncement of procedural fairness and adequate notice instead strengthened fundamental rights entrenched within the Constitution and ensured that the authorities respect the rights of citizens.

Conclusion

This landmark verdict from the Supreme Court marks a huge step forward toward safeguarding citizens against whimsical acts of the state. It has imposed a framework through its stance on ensuring due process and answerability on the part of authorities of the public sphere, reaffirming the rule of law and separation of powers in India. And as the court has said, even the executive is not above principles of fairness, transparency, and proportionality. The judgment thus serves as a reminder that accountability does check power in constitutional democracy, and even the most powerful state apparatus has to operate in the bounds of law.