• Equating “bulldozer justice” with a lawless state of affairs where might is right, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines and said no property should be demolished without a prior show cause notice.

• The apex court observed it will be totally unconstitutional for more than one reason if a citizen’s house is demolished merely because he is an accused or a convict, that too without following the due process as prescribed by law.

• A batch of petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution to raise the grievance on behalf of various citizens whose residential and commercial properties have been demolished by the state machinery, without following the due process of law, on the grounds of them being involved as accused in criminal offences. 

• A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan said the Executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review.

Key points of the judgment:

• The bench started the judgment with a few lines of famous Hindi poet Pradeep to highlight the importance of having a home.

• Observing that the right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said a house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security and a future.

• 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 the Constitution, which rests on the foundation of ‘the rule of law’, such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law.

• If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes the houses of citizens only on the ground that they are accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of ‘rule of law’. 

• If the executive acts as a judge and inflicts penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of ‘separation of powers’. The SC bench is of the view that in such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions. 

• For the executive to act in a transparent manner so as to avoid the vice of arbitrariness, certain binding directives need to be formulated. This will ensure that public officials do not act in a high-handed, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner. Further, if they indulge in such acts, accountability must be fastened upon them.

• Even in cases consisting of imposition of a death sentence, it is always a discretion available to the courts as to whether to award such an extreme punishment or not. There is even an institutional safeguard in the cases of such punishment to the effect that the trial court’s decision imposing death penalty cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court.

In that light, it cannot be said that a person who is only accused of committing some crime or even convicted can be inflicted the punishment of demolition of his property.

• In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, the bench found it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution.

• Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.

• Even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order before an appropriate forum. 

• Even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs.

• Notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a registered post. Additionally, the notice shall also be affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure in question.

• The time of 15 days shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice.

• The notice shall contain details regarding the nature of unauthorised construction, specific violation and the grounds of demolition.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store