Important takeaways from the decision – Firstpost

The Supreme Court heavily criticized the “bulldozer justice” of some state officials and said that demolishing the properties of an accused or convict without following due process is “unconstitutional”. The top court also laid down guidelines for demolition to ensure there is no misuse of state laws.

A bench comprising justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan on Wednesday (November 13) warned that officials involved in such “coercive acts” will be held accountable. “If a property is being demolished just because (a) person is accused, that is completely unconstitutional. Just as the executive cannot determine who is guilty, there cannot be a judge to decide whether he is guilty or not, and such an action would be overstepping the limits. The grisly aspect of the bulldozer is a reminder that constitutional values ​​and morality do not allow such abuses of power,” the apex court said.

The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging bulldozing action against people accused of crimes.

Here are the main conclusions from the Supreme Court’s decision on the bulldozer action:

Violation of the right to housing

The Supreme Court observed:
destruction of people’s property The right to housing under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated by the government “solely on the ground that they were charged with a crime”. “The right to housing is an aspect of Article 21. In our opinion, depriving such innocent people of their right to life by taking away their shelter is completely unconstitutional…”

The high court noted that razing the defendant’s house became “collective punishment” for the family members living in that house. “Building a house is a dimension of socio-economic aspirations and not a property, it symbolizes years of struggle and gives a sense of dignity, and if this right is taken away, then the authority must satisfy itself that such a measure is necessary. is the only available last resort,” the Supreme Court said, accordingly Bar and Bank.

The court stated, “The established principle of criminal law is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and in the event of the collapse of the structure, imposing collective punishment on all family members cannot be allowed under the Constitution.”

Giving a strong message against the trend of “bulldozer justice”, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, November 13, that the executive cannot demolish people’s homes just because they are accused or convicted of a crime.
Read more: https://t.co/XYnURWnMyG… pic.twitter.com/TQGXpoccim

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 13, 2024

selective destruction

The board also reacted to selective demolition, saying that the action gave rise to a presumption of malicious intent.

“When a structure is suddenly selected for demolition while others remain, then bad faith becomes great and a presumption can be drawn that the act is not to demolish the illegal structure but to punish the person before the court.” The court decided.

separation of powers

The Supreme Court said the executive cannot destroy the property of an accused without following due process.

The court decided: “a chilling sight.”
bulldozer The demolition of a building, where the authorities failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and acted without complying with the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless situation where ‘might makes right’. “Such oppressive and arbitrary actions have no place in our Constitution, which is based on the ‘rule of law’.”

Describing such actions as “extremism”, the court said they should be dealt with “with the heavy hand of the law”. “Our constitutional morality and values ​​do not allow such abuse of power and such misfortunes cannot be tolerated by the civil court.”

The court also emphasized that “it is against the principle of separation of powers for the executive to act as a judge and impose a demolition penalty on a citizen on the grounds that he is a defendant.”

RS’s demolition guidelines

The Supreme Court has framed guidelines across India to curb illegal demolition of properties. Using its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the board issued instructions that must be followed before such actions.

The provision allows the apex court to make an order or make such an order “necessary to do full justice in any case or matter pending before it.”

The high court said that even after the demolition order is given, the affected party should be given time to object to the decision.

“Even people who do not want to object to the demolition decision must be given sufficient time to evacuate and organize their affairs. “It is not a happy sight to see women, children and young people being dragged onto the streets overnight,” the court said.

The court said that demolition cannot be done without justification. The notice will be sent to the building owner by registered mail and will be posted on the outside of the structure that is to be demolished. The person will have 15 days to respond or the period specified in local civil codes, whichever is later.

The court said, “The above-mentioned 15-day period will begin from the date of receipt of the notification in question.”

The notice will include details such as the nature of the unauthorized construction, specific violation and reasons for demolition. The affected party should also be informed of the date of the personal hearing and the authority before which it will be held.

To avoid backdating, the court stated that “as soon as the notice showing cause has been properly served, that notice may be sent digitally via email to the collection agency, the district magistrate of the district, and an automatically generated response confirming receipt of the mail may be sent.” can also be removed from the office of the collector, system magistrate. The collection system judge will appoint a nodal officer within a month from today and will also assign an email address and forward it to all municipal and other authorities responsible for building regulations and demolitions.

The apex court also called for setting up of a dedicated digital portal to provide details of such notices and orders. Demolition operations must be videotaped and the report must be submitted to the relevant municipal commissioner.

The court panel said that the final decision should have stated why “the extreme stage” of demolition was the only option and that other options, such as consolidation and demolition of part of the property, were not possible.

However, the court clarified that “these directions will not apply in case of any unauthorized structure in any public place such as a road, street, footpath, adjoining railway line or any river or body of water, as well as where existing”. “The court issued a demolition order.”

The high court warned that if these rules are flouted, the responsible officials will be held liable for contempt of court. They will be responsible for returning the destroyed property at their own expense and will also pay compensation.

The decision stated that “even defendants or convicts have certain rights and guarantees within the scope of constitutional provisions and criminal law.”

With input from agencies