Supreme Court confronts ‘bulldozer justice’: Can it rein in demolition-happy States?

Stay on arbitrary demolitions, a result of court’s distrust in the executive, signals a new era of judicial intervention to protect citizens’ rights.

Demolition taking place at the Khyber Pass area in Delhi in August 2024. On September 2, the Supreme Court bench declared it would lay down guidelines on a “Pan-India Basis” to address petitioners’ concerns about illegal property demolition. | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma / The Hindu

The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, knows how to rein in State governments to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, irrespective of their numerical strength in society.

When public interest litigants recently sought its intervention, alleging that properties of persons accused of crimes were being demolished, it appeared as though the court was unlikely to go beyond issuing guidelines, whose violations by authorities often go unpunished.

However, the two-judge bench made it clear on September 17 that it would issue binding directives on October 1, not mere guidelines, to secure compliance with the rule of law by authorities.

In Jamiat Ulama I Hind vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others, currently heard by this bench, the issue goes beyond mere allegations of illegal property demolition. On September 2, the bench declared it would lay down guidelines on a “Pan-India Basis” to address the petitioners’ concerns. The bench even expressed appreciation for the Uttar Pradesh government, which stated in its affidavit that immovable properties could be demolished only in accordance with legally prescribed procedures.

On September 17, the bench had reasons to be dissatisfied with State governments’ responses to the petitioners’ grievances, as instances of continuing demolitions after its last hearing were brought to its notice. The bench’s unprecedented interim stay on “demolition anywhere across the country without seeking leave of this Court” until the next hearing on October 1 stems from its distrust of State governments that promised one thing in court but did the opposite on the ground. The bench made only two exceptions to its stay: demolition of unauthorised structures in public places such as roads, streets, footpaths, areas abutting railway lines, or any river or water bodies, and cases where a court of law has ordered demolition.

On September 2, the bench invited suggestions for framing its “Pan-India guidelines”. On September 17, it expressed concern over the glorification and grandstanding by certain government officials regarding the supposed merits of bulldozer demolitions of properties belonging to accused persons in criminal cases. Those who glorified demolitions argued that the petitioners’ grievances should be ignored if the demolitions followed due notice by authorities, making them “legal”.

Breach of natural justice

The bench, however, was concerned with allegations that notices issued to victims prior to demolitions were merely to fulfil a technical requirement. In some cases, notices were not issued at all, and when they were, insufficient time was given to victims to defend themselves or appeal against arbitrary demolition decisions, making it a clear breach of natural justice.

Moreover, the instances coming to light showed that victims mostly belonged to the minority community. On September 17, the bench proposed notifying the Election Commission in cases of official attempts to illegally demolish property of suspects or accused persons.

The bench suggested that demolishing an immovable property of even a convict is impermissible under law, let alone that of an accused or suspect. If the state’s objective is to teach a “lesson” to the alleged accused by delivering “instant justice” through a public spectacle of brute power, it seemed to imply that close relatives of the accused or suspect, who have legal claims over the property, cannot seek timely remedies to undo such illegal demolitions. Rather than conveying the image of a “hard state”, such symbolism only portrays the state as a bully with no respect for the rule of law.

During the September 17 hearing, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing several BJP-ruled States, alluded that the court was perhaps being influenced by “false narratives” about demolitions spread outside the court. Mehta suggested that the court might have overreacted to petitioners’ concerns, assuming demolitions were inherently illegal and aimed against minority communities, whose rights and liberties no longer mattered to governments.

The bench responded that it was unconcerned whether the narrative was true or false, but it was clear that even one illegal demolition—regardless of victims’ community—was against constitutional ethos, which clearly demands authorities’ respect for the rule of law.

Demolitions in BJP-ruled States

The bench was confronted with several recent instances of demolition in BJP-ruled States that clearly indicated their arbitrary and disproportionate nature. Demolitions of houses belonging to suspects or so-called accused persons were reported after communal clashes or violence in Mandsaur and Khargone in Madhya Pradesh; Sabarkantha and Khambhat in Gujarat; Jahangirpuri in Delhi; and Prayagraj, Kanpur, and Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh. According to reports, the majority of these houses belonged to Muslims.

In August, following a fight between two schoolboys in Udaipur, Rajasthan, the house of a Muslim student accused of attacking his Hindu classmate was demolished. The incident sparked riots in the city. The government justified the demolition, claiming the house was illegally built on forest land and the owner lacked ownership documents. The forest department issued an evacuation notice in the morning, and the house was razed by afternoon.

Typically, municipal authorities allow a 15-day notice period in such cases, with rules requiring a hearing and time for appeal before irreversible actions like demolition. The hasty demolition immediately after the violence, without allowing the family to exhaust legal remedies, follows a familiar pattern. It’s noteworthy that authorities often deem houses of the accused illegal only after alleged crimes occur.

While the Executive is expected to identify and penalise officials responsible for illegal demolitions, and the judiciary is bound to direct such actions, the Supreme Court’s intervention is likely to be more comprehensive.

On September 10, the same bench heard a case where the Rajasthan government was accused of non-compliance with the court’s directive against allotting Sanganer Open Prison land to the Health Department for a satellite hospital. The bench warned State Chief Secretary Sudhansh Pant of potential imprisonment for contempt if the State proceeded to demolish houses built by prisoners and their families in the Open Prison camp. This case is part of the court’s efforts to promote open prisons for rehabilitating convicted prisoners.

Some observers worry that the Supreme Court’s previous guidelines on controlling hate speeches and mob lynchings haven’t achieved the desired results, and fear similar ineffectiveness for the proposed bulldozer case guidelines.

To address this concern, the bench plans to issue directions, not mere guidelines, modelled after the Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan case (1997). In that landmark decision, the court’s directions for establishing Internal Complaints Committees at all workplaces to prevent sexual harassment of women were effective until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act in 2013.

V. Venkatesan is an independent legal journalist based in New Delhi. Formerly Senior Associate Editor with Frontline, he has been reporting and commenting on legal issues.