No More Bulldozer Justice: Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling on Demolitions

The Supreme Court on Thursday laid down stringent guidelines to curb the practice of "bulldozer justice," asserting that the executive cannot declare a person guilty or take the unilateral decision to demolish an accused individual's property.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan said that no demolition should take place without a prior 15-day notice to the property owner. The notice must be sent by registered post and affixed to the structure's outer portion. It should detail the nature of the unauthorized construction, the specific violation, and the grounds for demolition.

Additionally, the demolition process must be videographed, and any failure to adhere to these guidelines will result in contempt of court.

The court reaffirmed that state authorities and their officials cannot take arbitrary or excessive measures. The executive cannot bypass judicial processes and take unilateral actions against accused individuals. The judgment underlined that the rule of law ensures individuals’ properties are not seized or demolished arbitrarily, upholding the constitutional protections against such actions.

Addressing concerns over the practice of demolitions by state governments targeting accused individuals, the court stressed the importance of the separation of powers, stressing that judicial functions, including adjudication, must remain the exclusive domain of the judiciary. The court further pointed out that demolitions carried out without judicial review violate the principle of separation of powers and hold public officials accountable for such high-handed actions. 

The verdict follows multiple petitions challenging the growing trend of bulldozer demolitions. One petition highlighted the increasing use of demolitions as a tool of punishment, particularly targeting marginalized and minority communities, and sought a direction for demolitions to be carried out strictly according to the law. 

On October 1, the Supreme Court had reserved its order after a prolonged hearing on the matter and extended an interim order preventing demolitions without court permission. However, this order excludes unauthorized constructions on public roads, footpaths, and similar areas.