Case Snap in Brief: Name of the Case: In Re.: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, W.P. (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 along with W.P. (Criminal) NO. 162 OF 2022 W.P. (Civil) NO. 328 OF 2022 Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Vishwanathan

INTRODUCTION

"घर की मुंडेर पर बैठी चिड़या, कहती है अिधकार हमारा।"

The bird perched on the roof’s edge declares, this shelter too is our rightful share is what famous Hindi Poet Nagarjun says! This reflects the innate right of every being, human or otherwise, to have a place of safety and belonging. It aligns with the Court’s view that shelter is an essential right, one that must be safeguarded as a fundamental aspect of dignity and life.

In response to a series of petitions challenging the practice of demolishing properties belonging to individuals accused of crimes, a Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan condemned these so-called “bulldozer actions” by the state. The Court ruled firmly that the State cannot demolish the properties or homes of accused persons solely on the grounds of accusation or conviction. This decision establishes strong safeguards against arbitrary demolition actions and emphasizes that any such demolition must strictly adhere to the due process of law.

The Court set forth stringent guidelines to curb these actions. It stated that if authorities carry out demolitions without legal process, the affected families of the accused or convicted individuals are entitled to compensation. Furthermore, if officials violate the Court’s guidelines, they could face contempt proceedings and be subject to prosecution.

The Court also clarified that in cases where demolitions are found to be in direct violation of the Court’s orders, the responsible officers will be personally liable. This accountability extends to covering the costs for restitution of the demolished property, as well as payment for any damages incurred.

In this landmark ruling, the Court underscored that punitive measures against accused individuals must be balanced with a commitment to lawful processes and respect for individual rights, reinforcing the principle that accusations alone do not justify punitive actions without due legal procedures. This decision aims to curb the misuse of state power and protect citizens from extrajudicial punishments that undermine justice.

RIGHT TO SHELTER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT & PROTECTION FROM CRIMINAL LAW

The Supreme Court, emphasizing that the “right to shelter” is a crucial part of Article 21, condemned the practice of demolishing homes where accused persons or their families reside. The Court stated that targeting individuals not involved in a crime, through demolition of their homes or property, amounts to “anarchy” and violates the constitutional right to life. Such actions, the Court noted, inflict unnecessary suffering on innocent family members, especially women, children, and the elderly, who may be forced onto the streets without warning. The Court remarked, “It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.”

The Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of criminal law: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It expressed concern that demolishing a house—where multiple family members or even entire families reside—merely because one occupant is accused or convicted, imposes a form of collective punishment. This practice, the Court stated, is wholly incompatible with India’s constitutional values and criminal justice system. In this significant ruling, the Court highlighted that due process and individual rights must be upheld, even when punitive actions are pursued against those accused of crimes. The decision aims to prevent extrajudicial actions that penalize innocent individuals, underscoring that the constitutional and legal framework does not allow for collective retribution against families for the actions of one member.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The Court emphasized that the fundamental legal principle—"an accused is not guilty unless proven so in a court of law"—is the cornerstone of a just legal system. This principle ensures that any trial must be fair, transparent, and uninfluenced by public opinion. Applying these principles to the petitions before it, the Court held that demolishing a citizen's home solely because they are an accused, or even convicted, without adhering to the legal process, is unconstitutional on multiple counts.

The Court clarified that declaring someone guilty and enforcing punishment is the exclusive domain of the judiciary. It asserted that if the executive unilaterally demolishes the property of an accused based solely on accusations, without due legal process, this act violates the rule of law and undermines the judicial system. This Court in the case of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. 1 Shri Raj Narain , has held the rule of law to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution. As the Court put it, “the executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential or commercial property.” Such actions, it stated, represent a dangerous overreach of executive power, transgressing its constitutional boundaries.

Condemning these “bulldozer actions,” the Court highlighted that demolishing buildings without observing basic principles of natural justice and due process reveals a state of lawlessness, where the principle of “might is right” prevails. In a country founded on the rule of law, the Court asserted, such arbitrary and excessive actions by the executive have no place. The Constitution requires that all actions be subject to the law, not driven by unchecked authority or arbitrary force. The Court warned that if executive bodies overstep their limits in this way, they should expect to face severe legal consequences.

Furthermore, the Court underscored that even if an individual is convicted of a crime, the demolition of their property cannot occur without adherence to legally established procedures. Labeling these executive actions as “wholly arbitrary” and an “abuse of process,” the Court expressed deep concern over the misuse of power. It stressed that punishing individuals by targeting their property without legal justification is a violation of constitutional rights, particularly the right to life and dignity under Article 21 .

In the case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and another , this court observed that No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of person to another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations.”

The Court’s ruling serves as a strong rebuke of arbitrary demolitions carried out under the guise of justice. The judiciary’s decision reaffirms that due process, fairness, and judicial review are non-negotiable pillars of the legal system. By establishing stringent guidelines, the Court seeks to prevent executive overreach and protect citizens’ rights against impulsive punitive actions.

This judgment not only strengthens the rule of law but also underscores the importance of a balanced approach, where state authority operates within the framework of accountability and legality.

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. , the court observed that “As the interpreter of the Constitution, it is the duty of this Court to be vigilant against State action that threatens to upset the fine balance between the power of the state and rights of citizens and to safeguard the liberties that inhere in our citizens.”

In Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. , where this Court held: “If Rule of law is absent, there is no accountability, there is abuse of power and corruption. When the Rule of law disappears, we are ruled not by laws but by the idiosyncrasies and whims of those in power.”

In Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others , the court observed that “The concept of Rule of law is closely intertwined with adjudication by courts of law and also with the consequences of decisions taken by courts. Therefore, the judiciary has to carry out its obligations effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted the task and always in favour of Rule of law.”

A Nine-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of T.N. recognized the doctrine of the separation of powers as a system of “check and balance”.

In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, this Court declared the dictum that State actions causing loss are actionable under public law. This is a result of innovation, a new tool with the courts which are the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State action. The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action are applicable to cases of executive or statutory exercise of power, besides requiring that such actions also not lack bona fides.”

In State of A.P. v. Food Corporation of India, this Court observed that it is a known fact that in transactions of government business, no one would own personal responsibility and decisions would be leisurely taken at various levels.

In the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India and another held that the State actions causing loss are actionable under public law. The courts, which are the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, would ensure protection against devastating results of State action.

DIRECTIONS LAID DOWN TO BE FOLLOWED IN CARRYING OUT DEMOLITION WORK

The Supreme Court has laid down a uniform guideline to be followed while performing the demolition work. Notwithstanding any of the directions laid down being fulfilled, the demolition shall be considered as illegal and unconstitutional and a grave breach of rule of law. The guidelines laid down by the court to be followed in “pan-India” basis are as follows:

a) Mandatory Show Cause Notice: No demolition shall proceed without a formal show cause notice. This notice must provide the respondent at least the time allowed by local municipal laws, or a minimum of 15 days from the service date, whichever is greater.

b) Adequate Response Time: Sufficient time must be granted for individuals to respond, challenge, or contest the demolition notice. Should a recipient choose not to contest, ample time should still be allowed for them to vacate and make alternative arrangements.

c) Notice Delivery: The demolition notice shall be served directly to the owner or occupant by registered post, with an acknowledgment. Additionally, the notice shall be affixed on the outer part of the structure to ensure visibility.

d) Digital Intimation to District Authorities: To prevent any allegation of backdating, digital confirmation of the notice delivery shall be sent to the district’s Collector or District Magistrate via email. The office should send an automated acknowledgment of receipt.

e) Designation of Nodal Officers: The Collector or District Magistrate is to appoint a nodal officer for all demolition communications. An email address shall be assigned for this purpose, with details shared with all municipal and building regulatory authorities within one month.

f) Detailed Notice Content: The show cause notice must specify:

i) The nature of the alleged unauthorized construction,

ii) Detailed violations and grounds for demolition,

iii) A list of required documents to be submitted by the respondent,

iv) Date and authority assigned for the personal hearing.

g) Establishment of a Digital Portal: Each municipal authority shall create a digital portal within three months, providing public access to documents, notices, responses, and the final demolition orders.

h) Personal Hearing and Record-Keeping: A personal hearing shall be offered to the respondent, with detailed minutes recorded. This measure upholds the respondent's right to be heard.

i) Final Order Specifications: The final order must include:

i) The respondent’s arguments and the authority’s counterarguments,

ii) An analysis of whether the construction is “compoundable” (eligible for legalization),

iii) If partial demolition is an option, this should be detailed,

iv) Justification for demolition as a last resort, should other measures prove ineffective.

j) Implementation Delay and Digital Display: If an appeal is permissible by statute, the final demolition order must not be enforced for 15 days post-receipt. This order shall be made publicly accessible on the digital portal.

k) Self-Removal Option: The property owner/occupier shall have the option to remove the unauthorized construction within 15 days. Failing this, and barring any stay from appellate bodies or courts, the authority may proceed with demolition.

l) Strict Limits on Demolition: Only structures deemed unauthorized and uncompoundable after thorough review shall face demolition.

m) Pre-Demolition Protocol: A meticulous inspection report, signed by two witnesses (Panchas), shall precede any demolition.

n) Demolition Documentation and Preservation: The entire demolition process shall be videographed, with a final report listing all participating officials. The video and report will be submitted to the Municipal Commissioner and displayed on the portal.

o) Exemptions: These guidelines do not apply to unauthorized structures in public areas such as roads, footpaths, or water bodies, nor to cases where a court order mandates demolition.

IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT

The Court’s judgment establishing strict guidelines for demolitions has significant implications for upholding the rule of law, individual rights, and procedural fairness. By mandating that demolitions cannot occur without proper notice and due process, the ruling prevents arbitrary, punitive actions against individuals accused or convicted of crimes, ensuring that punishment is not extrajudicial. This decision strengthens constitutional protections under Article 21, affirming that the right to shelter is integral to the right to life and cannot be undermined by hasty or unlawful actions.

Additionally, the judgment holds executive authorities accountable, requiring digital records, clear documentation, and transparent communication with district officers to prevent misuse of power. By demanding personal hearings, structured appeals, and detailed justification for demolitions, the Court reinforces the principle that administrative power must be exercised within lawful limits.

This landmark ruling promotes accountability in governance, curbs abuse of executive power, and reinforces that punitive actions must align with established legal procedures. It offers citizens greater protection from unwarranted state actions and preserves the sanctity of their homes, contributing to a more just and fair judicial system in India.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this judgment serves as a critical reinforcement of constitutional values, underscoring that punitive actions must be pursued within the boundaries of law, due process, and human dignity. By establishing strict protocols and accountability measures for demolitions, the Court affirms that arbitrary actions by the state are antithetical to the principles of justice and equality. This ruling upholds the idea that the right to shelter, a fundamental part of the right to life, cannot be violated without legal justification. It also reinforces the notion that administrative powers are not absolute and must be exercised with care, transparency, and respect for individual rights.

The judgment not only strengthens the rule of law but also provides greater security to individuals and families, preventing them from falling victim to abrupt and unjust state actions. In this spirit, the words of the renowned Hindi poet Kabir echo the sentiment:

"तू कहता है कागद की लेखी, मैं कहता हूँ आँखिन की देखी।"

(You trust the ink on the paper, but I trust what I have seen with my own eyes.)

This resonates with the judgment’s essence, reminding us that justice must be grounded in lived experience, fairness, and truth, not in unchecked authority.

- The author is Former Deputy Advocate General (Madhya Pradesh), Advocate, Supreme Court of India.