Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Background

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities.

Key Principles Addressed

The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights. The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system.

Justice Gavai, in delivering the judgment, quoted famous words from Lord Denning, who stated that even the humblest abode is a sanctuary that no authority can violate without lawful justification. This highlights the Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional protections for all citizens, regardless of social or economic status.

Guidelines for Demolition Procedures

The Supreme Court has provided specific procedural guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency in demolition actions:

1. Mandatory 15-Day Notice: No property should be demolished without issuing a 15-day notice to the property owner, detailing the reasons and legal basis for the action.

2. Notice Delivery: The notice must be served via registered post and displayed on the property to ensure the owner is aware.

3. Details of Alleged Violations: The notice should specify the nature of unauthorized construction or violation involved and provide grounds for demolition.

4. Video Recording of Demolition: To ensure transparency, any demolition must be video-recorded, with footage available for judicial review if needed.

Any deviation from these guidelines could lead to contempt of court, emphasizing the serious stance the Court has taken against arbitrary demolitions.

The Role of the Executive and Separation of Powers

The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of separation of powers between the executive and judiciary, emphasizing that the executive cannot act as both judge and enforcer. This principle ensures that the judiciary, an independent body, is the only authority with the power to adjudicate guilt or innocence.

The Court stated that executive actions, such as demolitions, cannot serve as punitive measures against individuals merely accused of crimes. Such actions violate the constitutional separation of powers and threaten the rule of law. Instead, the executive must respect judicial processes and follow due legal procedures.

Rights of the Accused and Presumption of Innocence

The ruling stresses the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal law. Under India’s Constitution, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court stated that demolishing properties of individuals accused of crimes without a trial is both premature and unconstitutional.

Implications for State Governments and Law Enforcement

The judgment also impacts state governments, directing them to ensure law enforcement adheres strictly to due process. Specifically:

- Accountability of Law Enforcement: The Court instructed that senior officials, including police commissioners, would be held accountable for enforcing these guidelines.

- Special Cells for Monitoring: A directive was issued to establish special cells within the police force to monitor compliance and prevent unauthorized demolitions.

- Transparency in Execution: Demolitions should be conducted transparently, with evidence to ensure they are in line with legal standards.

Public Trust and State Accountability

This decision underscores the doctrine of public trust and accountability. The Supreme Court clarified that public officers must act in good faith and be transparent in exercising their duties, especially when such actions impact citizens' lives and properties.

In the Court’s view, public accountability is essential for upholding democratic values and trust in state machinery. This decision mandates that any misuse of power by state officials must be met with disciplinary actions, thus safeguarding citizens from arbitrary state actions.

Conclusion: Upholding the Rule of Law

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on bulldozer justice reinforces the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power, preserving individual rights and ensuring procedural fairness. This judgment reaffirms that due process and equal treatment are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution and cannot be bypassed for administrative expedience.

With this ruling, the Court has sent a clear message that no one is above the law, and all actions, especially those by the state, must be conducted within a legal framework that respects citizens' rights and dignity.