- Introduction & Factual Background
The Supreme Court of India, in exercise of its constitutional powers under Article 32, heard a series of petitions regarding arbitrary demolitions of properties,without trial or due process, against persons only accused of a crime and not convicted, which were popularly perceived as an extra-legal means of punishment, a practice which was commonly referred to as “bulldozer justice.” The case was filed following the demolition of the house of Rashid Khan in Rajasthan after his son was accused of a crime, which reflected a disturbing trend of demolitions used by state authorities as extra-legal punishment without due process. A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan started hearing in September 2024. The Court wanted to formulate countrywide guidelines to prevent these actions and make state officials to accountable. Following submissions by both petitioners and state governments, the court passed judgment on October 1. The ultimate order directed all subsequent demolitions to strictly follow legal process, issuing detailed directives to maintain compliance and reinforce the rule of law.
- Issues under Judicial Scrutiny
The central constitutional and legal question before the Court was: Whether the state executive can be allowed to demolish citizen properties as a punitive action against an accused individual without any following of due process?
- Contentions of the Parties
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners suggested that the demolitions were not a valid exercise of municipal law enforcement, but punitive, extra-legal actions intended as a form of “bulldozer justice.” They asserted that the temporal proximity of the demolitions to when the accused had been named in high profile criminal case points toward a malicious purpose. They contended that these measures contravened an array of constitutional and legal precepts, among them the rule of law, due process, right to shelter, and prohibition of collective punishment. They also noted a discriminatory “pick and choose” policy, wherein equivalent unauthorized erections were spared, indicating ill will. The petitioners suggested a comprehensive set of guidelines, such as a minimum response time of 45-60 days, personal hearings being obligatory, and the doctrine of proportionality, in which demolition should be an option of last resort. They also sought accountability of erring officers, who must be given disciplinary action and held personally responsible for damages.
State’s Contentions
The State, through the Solicitor General, did not essentially challenge the requirement for demolitions to adhere to legal processes.It maintained that the demolitions were conducted against buildings that were in violation of municipal laws and that the correlation with criminal charges was coincidental.The recommendations made by the Solicitor General were aimed at filling the gaps in current legislation through the enforcement of tough compliance with applicable municipal law, a short notice period of 48-72 hours for unauthorized buildings on public land, and tough compliance with current statutory hearing and appeal procedures, with the rules of natural justice to be followed where the law is nonexistent. The State’s claim rested on the assumption that the demolitions constituted a legitimate exercise of municipal power to enforce building codes and eliminate encroachments.
- Judicial Reasoning
The Supreme Court of India’s ruling on punitive demolitions was a strong and multi-dimensional reaffirmation of the constitutional principles that anchor the nation. The verdict dealt squarely with the core question of “bulldozer justice” from a variety of legal and constitutional angles.
- On the Rule of Law:
The rationale of the Court was founded on A.V. Dicey’s rule of law, which requires that no individual can be punished except upon a “distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts.” The ruling clearly set forth that the executive “cannot declare a person guilty,” for this is the essence of the judiciary.The Court employed strong words to label the practice as a “lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’”, which would “erode public confidence in the justice system.” It answered the question with an “emphatic no” as to whether an accused could be made subject to demolition as punishment, reiterating that the rule of law forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment cited earlier decisions like Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2019), which opined that the lack of the rule of law results in abuse of power and corruption, and Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others (2023), which held that the Court must step in when the State does not carry out its responsibilities to ensure the rule of law prevails.
- On the Doctrine of Separation of Powers:
The Court categorically held that the punitive deployment of demolitions was a flagrant violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.The act of the executive in imposing a penalty taken by itself usurped the exclusive role of the judiciary in determining guilt and awarding punishment.This was held to be “wholly impossible in our constitutional setup,” for adjudicatory roles are left only to the judiciary.The ruling mentioned that the state’s move was an “impermissible attempt by the executive to enter the adjudicatory arena which is exclusively reserved for the judiciary.”
- On the Doctrine of Public Trust and Public Accountability
The ruling associated the breach of the separation of powers with the ‘public trust doctrine,’ whereby officials are obliged “faithfully to discharge their duties in order to prolong public purpose” and answerable for high-handed behavior.According to the Court, “A public official who acts malafide, whimsically and capriciously would not be acting in public interest.” It quoted precedents such as Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. V State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) and Nilabati Behera (1993), which determine that actions resulting in loss are “actionable under public law” and the courts are the “protectors of civil liberties.” The thrust of the judgment in holding officials personally responsible for illegal demolitions is a direct application of this doctrine of public accountability.
- On the Rights of the Accused under the Constitution:
The court reiterates that prisoners, irrespective of status, are not divested of fundamental rights, and one such right is the right to dignity. It implies that they cannot be treated cruelly, inhumanly, or arbitrarily by the state.Referring to cases such as Sunil Batra and Charles Sobraj, the judgment says that no rights of prisoners under Articles 14, 19, and 21 are lost due to incarceration.It stresses that any state action against them even non-physical ones, which amounts to an “infraction of liberty or life,” shall meet the requirements of Article 21.The Court held that the state can be made liable for violations of these rights, monetary compensation, as in Rudul Sah, being a remedy for redress.
- On the Principles of Criminal Law:
Presumption of Innocence and Natural Justice The ruling categorically held that the practice of punishing a person accused of a crime prior to trial or conviction is a clear contravention of the presumption of innocence and natural justice principles. The Court observed that “a person is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt.” It also declared that destruction of a property without giving the owner an opportunity to be heard, as required by natural justice, is “wholly unsustainable.”
- On the Right to Shelter:
The Court ruled that destroying houses as punishment for the supposed crime of an accused relative is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the right to shelter under Article 21. Referring to cases such as Chameli Singh, the ruling underscored that the right to shelter is an elementary human right and includes a safe, dignified residence. State authorities can destroy unlawful buildings, but they cannot do so in a capricious manner. The Court concluded that a presumption of malice can be made where properties of the accused are selectively targeted by authorities.The ruling also invoked the proportionality principle, and according to this, demolition could only be resorted to as an extreme measure after weighing less drastic options such as compounding the violation or demolishing in part.Destroying a home, a product of years of effort, is disproportionate and against citizens’ socio-economic rights and dignity.
- On the Permissibility of Collective Punishment:
The Court strongly rejected the concept of collective punishment on the grounds that holding innocent family members for the presumed offense of one individual is repugnant to the canons of justice. Justice Gavai said that “A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of family or individuals,” highlighting the personal dimension of the ruling. The ruling declared that the law “does not allow the collective punishment” and that demolishing the home of a family for the action of an individual is an open violation of this principle.
VI. The Pan-India Guidelines
Exercising its jurisdiction to do complete justice under Article 142 (a provision that gives the Supreme Court special powers to pass any order required to “do complete justice” in a case), the Court issued comprehensive pan-India guidelines to manage bulldozer demolitions. It stated that any breach would be considered contempt of court (the crime of disobedience or disrespect for a court of law), and that official public servants would be liable for the “restitution of the demolished property” and would incur “personal costs.” The following are the takeaways from the guidelines:
1.Written notice will be posted to the owner-occupier by registered post, at least fifteen days before demolition or as provided by municipal law, whichever is later. Time begins with the receipt of notice. The notice will be prominently posted on the exterior surface of the building.
The notice should include:
- The nature of the unauthorized building,
- Reasons for demolition,
- A list of documents necessary for a response,
- Date of a personal hearing, and
- The concerned authority
2.The Collector’s and District Magistrate’s offices should be emailed with details immediately after notice is given to avoid “back-dating.” An auto-generated acknowledgement of receipt should be issued.
3.A local officer with an email address shall be appointed by the Collector or District Magistrate. All local and municipal authorities shall be notified of this within a month. Each municipal authority will provide a digital portal to host information regarding the notice, response, show-cause notice, and final order. This portal should be established within three months.
4.The concerned authority will conduct a personal hearing of the owner-occupier. A reasoned final order will be made, declaring whether partial demolition or compounding was given a thought and why the “draconian step of demolition” was adopted.
5.Final order may be challenged by an appellate authority. No demolition shall be carried out for fifteen days from the date of the final order (which would be exhibited on the digital portal).
6.The owner-occupier shall be provided with 15 days from the date of receiving such notice to demolish or remove the illegal property themselves.
7.Prior to demolition, a proper inspection report shall be made by the concerned authority and attested by two witnesses (Panchas, or independent witnesses).
8.The demolition shall be videographed, and a report with a list of personnel who participated shall be drawn up, submitted to the Municipal Commissioner, and placed on the digital portal. The video will be archived.
VII. Defects in Law Addressed by the Judgment
The judgment resolved essential flaws in India’s law against demolitions.
The first significant defect was a vacuum in statute, with municipal legislation not having protection against punitive demolitions.Authorities often misused their authority, employing demolition as an instrument of extra-legal punishment in the guise of “enforcement of regulations.” The Court clearly drew a distinction, holding that demolition can never be a form of punishment.
A second, shortcoming was the lack of strong procedural due processThe Court addressed this by making written notices compulsory, conducting personal hearings, and open, digitally-recorded orders, thus stopping the practice of backdated or verbal orders.
Third, it bridged a fundamental gap in accountability.Invoking the doctrine of public accountability, the judgment introduced personal liability for officials, such as provisions for restitution and contempt, which acts as a deterrence against mala fide state action.
Lastly, the judgment constitutionalized an administrative sphere by associating demolitions with Article 21’s right to shelter and the principles of proportionality and the presumption of innocence.
VIII. Inference
This ruling is a firm judicial act against the insidious normalization of “bulldozer politics,” a species of executive populism that disregards legal institutions. The Court’s unequivocal declaration that punishment has to be determined judicially reaffirms constitutionalism’s moral supremacy over political convenience. This ruling challenges an underlying political tendency in India that celebrates strongman strategies and public spectacles of “instant justice” against the due process. This phenomenon is reminiscent of Giorgio Agamben’s state of exception, where the executive appeals to unique powers beyond the law. Bulldozer justice is its best example, taking municipal equipment to become tools for political communication. The Court’s ruling asserts the constitutional order, not allowing the exception threaten the legal side norm. The decision also manifests Lon Fuller’s “inner morality of law.” By requiring open notices, written reasons, and electronic records, the Court infused the ideals of generality, clarity, and congruence into municipal enforcement.This guarantees the citizens are governed by intelligible rules, rather than whim commands, upholding the very cornerstone of legality.From a socio-political perspective, the ruling serves as an important corrective to the weaponization of state power against marginalized sections, who have borne the disproportionate brunt of such actions. By dismissing collective punishment, the Court reasserted the egalitarian spirit of Article 14 against a drifting majoritarianism. Yet, the judgment’s true impact depends on its implementation. Its insistence on digital transparency and personal liability could transform administrative culture, but given the political climate where bulldozer actions are often electorally popular, compliance may face significant challenges. Thus, while the Court has restored the rule of law in theory, its enforcement requires vigilant citizens, a robust civil society, and continued judicial oversight.
Hanisha Doshi
Nirma University, Institute of law