Supreme Court’s stand on “bulldozer culture”
Context:
Recently, the Supreme Court of India held that states becoming judges and encouraging demolishing homes of accused individuals as a punitive measure is a naked display of ‘might is right’.
- The ruling addressed the issues of “bulldozer culture,” in which state authorities have been demolishing properties without following established legal procedures.
Relevance:
GS-02 (Indian Polity)
Key Highlights:
Supreme Court Directives on Demolition Protocol:
A bench led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, issuing binding guidelines to ensure accountability in state-led demolitions. Key requirements include:
- A 15-day notice prior to demolition.
- Details of unauthorised construction and specific violations.
- An opportunity for property owners or occupants to challenge the demolition.
- Videographic documentation of the demolition process.
- A reasoned final order from the concerned authority.
Accountability and Penalties for Officials:
- The court highlighted that the concerned officials who fail to follow these directives shall be held liable for restitution of the demolished property and shall face contempt proceedings.
- This step was aimed at controlling arbitrary actions by public officials.
Protection of the Rule of Law and Basic Constitutional Rights:
- The concept of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution and “rule of law” was underscored to ensure that states do not resort to taking punitive actions that bypass judicial authority.
- The court highlighted that demolishing homes without due process is deemed unconstitutional and a violation of basic rights.
Presumption of Innocence:
- The court reminded States that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and punitive actions against their families—such as demolition—are unjust, potentially affecting those not involved in the alleged crime.
- Justice Gavai noted that depriving innocent family members of shelter was tantamount to “anarchy.”
Separation of Powers:
- The judgement mainly reinforced the fundamental fact that it is the judiciary, and not the executive, that holds the authority to determine guilt or innocence.
- Arbitrary state actions, especially those disproportionately targeting certain properties, could imply mala fide intentions.
Symbolism and Importance of Home for Citizens:
- The court recognised that, for many, a home represents hard-earned stability and security. Authorities are urged to consider demolition as a last resort, only if it is legally justified and no other options remain.
Article 142:
- The article gives discretionary power to Supreme Court to pass any orders or decrees it deems necessary to achieve complete justice in a pending matter
- The Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of Article 142 has evolved over time through various precedents. The Supreme Court has broad inherent powers under Article 142, and it’s up to the court to determine what it means to achieve complete justice.
- Examples of how the Supreme Court has used Article 142:
- In Dr. Nirmal Singh Panesar v. Mrs. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” even if one spouse opposes it.
- The Supreme Court has set aside the “automatic stay vacation” rule and issued guidelines for high courts to follow when passing interim orders of stay of proceeding.
- The cleaning of Taj Mahal and justice to many undertrials.
