.jpeg)
India's Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, has remarked that permitting such "bulldozer justice" would undermine the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A. This directive, issued on the eve of Justice Chandrachud’s retirement, emphasizes six essential steps that must precede any demolition, including proper surveys, issuance of written notices, and consideration of objections. The court also laid down that even for development projects, these six procedural steps must be adhered to before demolishing any property.
Firstly, authorities must verify existing land records and maps. Secondly, a proper survey must be conducted to identify actual encroachments. Thirdly, written notices must be issued to the alleged encroachers. Fourthly, authorities should consider objections and provide an opportunity for a hearing. Fifthly, reasonable time must be given for voluntary removal of encroachments. Lastly, if necessary, additional land must be legally acquired.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the trend of unilateral and arbitrary "bulldozer justice," stating that threatening citizens with property destruction cannot suppress their voices. It emphasized that such actions, outside the ambit of law, are unacceptable and violate fundamental rights. The government must follow due legal process and provide individuals an opportunity to be heard before demolishing any property. If bulldozer actions are permitted, it would nullify the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A.
The court highlighted that arbitrary or illegal actions by authorities could lead to vindictive demolitions, jeopardizing the rights of individuals. In the specific case from Maharajganj district, Uttar Pradesh, where a journalist's house was unlawfully demolished in 2019, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, awarding interim compensation of ₹25 lakh and initiating disciplinary proceedings against the responsible officials.
The bench observed that destroying citizens’ homes or properties without following due legal processes cannot be justified. The court noted the state government's failure to produce any document verifying the original width of National Highway 730, which the demolition purportedly aimed to restore. It also found no evidence of proper surveys or demarcations marking the journalist’s house as encroached. This case exposed a pattern of abuse of power, which the court described as an example of state overreach.
This landmark ruling by the Supreme Court serves as a necessary check on the misuse of executive power. By halting so-called bulldozer justice, the court conveyed a clear message that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be arbitrarily trampled by the executive. Punishing individuals without a fair trial violates the concept of natural justice.
However, the court clarified that this ruling does not cover unauthorized constructions on government land or public spaces such as railway lines, footpaths, and roads. Still, it recognized the reality that illegal encroachments or constructions on public land do not occur overnight. Political backing and bureaucratic collusion often enable such acts, making it imperative for authorities to take timely and legal actions.
Moreover, the court underscored that any demolition must follow legal procedures and allow respondents to present their case. By delivering this balanced judgment, the Supreme Court has not only upheld constitutional values but also instilled public confidence in the judiciary.
In essence, this ruling reminds the executive of its limits and rejects the notion of officials acting as judges and executioners. The court exposed the misuse of administrative power under the guise of bulldozer justice, emphasizing that no public servant has the authority to punish anyone without trial.
The court also warned against collective punishment, noting that demolishing a person's home, built over a lifetime, within mere hours without a chance for objection is akin to lawlessness. To ensure accountability, the court directed that if any house is unlawfully demolished, the costs of reconstruction should be deducted from the salaries of the responsible officials.
However, the court maintained that the ruling does not apply to demolitions of illegal constructions on public property, such as roads or footpaths, as long as due process is followed. This ruling sets an example of judicial balance, fostering constitutional values in a democratic society over time.
Comments