Rehan Khan
On 13th November, the Supreme Court of India has prohibited the demolition of properties solely based on the criminal status of their occupants, describing such acts by authorities as unconstitutional and an abuse of executive power. A Division-Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan underscored that no building should be razed merely because the owner or resident is implicated in a crime. The Court’s judgment lays out stringent guidelines aimed at ensuring fair legal procedure before any property is demolished, marking a pivotal stand against what is often referred to as “bulldozer justice.”
The Court underscored the rule of law, emphasizing that only judicial authorities can determine an individual’s guilt or innocence, not the executive. In the Court’s words, “The executive cannot become a judge and punish an accused by demolishing their property.” In response to this recurring trend of arbitrary demolitions, the Court issued a set of comprehensive guidelines aimed at ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in demolition proceedings, cautioning that non-compliance with these guidelines will lead to contempt charges against erring officials. Officials responsible for illegal demolitions will also be liable for compensating the affected parties and may face prosecution.
The Court’s ruling came after multiple petitions were filed by civil society groups, led by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, challenging the use of demolitions as punitive measures by various state authorities. The petitioners argued that demolitions without due process infringed on the fundamental right to shelter enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court concurred, noting that demolishing a home impacts not only the accused but their families, potentially resulting in “collective punishment” that is impermissible under Indian law.
The Court issued a ten-point directive to curb arbitrary demolitions, emphasizing that each step must respect the rights of property owners and be documented transparently. These key directives include:
- Notice Requirement and Appeal Period: Authorities must issue a show-cause notice by registered mail, clearly specifying the violations warranting demolition. The owner must be given at least 15 days to respond and appeal the notice.
- Notification and Record-Keeping: To prevent misuse, a digital record of each notice must be maintained. Authorities must also notify the District Magistrate and relevant officials as soon as a demolition notice is issued, and a centralized email acknowledgment system must be established to document this communication.
- Personal Hearing and Detailed Orders: Owners should be granted a personal hearing to contest the allegations. The final demolition order must be detailed, addressing each contention, and explain if the illegal structure can be “compounded” (regularized) rather than demolished. Only the specific non-compoundable portion of a building should face demolition.
- Grace Period and Voluntary Removal: A 15-day grace period should be allowed for owners to remove illegal structures on their own after the order is issued, and no demolition should proceed if an appeal against the order is pending.
- Videographed Proceedings: Each demolition process must be recorded, with the video and a detailed inspection report filed with the municipal commissioner and accessible on a public digital portal.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of due process in maintaining public trust and deterring any perception of arbitrariness. The Court stated, “When an individual is targeted and their property is suddenly marked for demolition while similar structures are untouched, there arises a presumption of mala fides, suggesting that the purpose may not be law enforcement but an attempt to penalize without trial.” Further reinforcing this principle, the Court ruled that authorities must record detailed inspection reports and videograph the entire demolition process, with all footage preserved for accountability.
The guidelines also specify that once a final demolition order is issued, a grace period of 15 days should be given to allow the owner to remove the unauthorized portions of the structure. If no stay order is obtained from an appellate body within this period, only the non-compoundable portions of the structure may be demolished. The Court added that demolitions on public properties, such as roads and riverbanks, are exempt from these procedures, provided the actions follow local laws.
The Court observed that “Our constitutional values do not permit such abuse of power, and any misadventures by the executive must be met with the heavy hand of the law.” The Court asserted that even when an individual is convicted, their property cannot be destroyed as a punitive measure without due process, as such actions constitute a breach of the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive.
Background of the Case
The Court’s decision follows a series of high-profile cases in which authorities, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, undertook demolition drives targeting the homes and shops of individuals accused of criminal acts. One notable case involved the demolition of properties following communal violence in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area in 2022, which drew widespread condemnation and petitions for judicial intervention. These actions raised concerns about selective demolitions aimed at punishing specific groups, particularly those belonging to marginalized communities. In response, the Supreme Court issued interim orders halting demolitions without judicial permission, thereby setting the stage for the recent ruling to establish comprehensive, nationwide guidelines.
Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected cases)
Bench: Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan