Supreme Court on bulldozer action: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on bulldozer actions Wednesday, stating that the executive cannot override judicial authority and emphasising that “the legal process should not assume the guilt of an accused.”
The court was hearing a series of petitions, including one from the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, challenging the practice of demolishing properties as a punitive measure against individuals accused of crimes.
In its judgment, the court underscored that bulldozer actions not only impose “collective punishment” on the accused but also affect their families, which it called “unconstitutional” and “unacceptable.”
“The executive cannot pronounce a person guilty. Only on the basis of accusation, if the executive demolishes the property of the person, it will strike at the rule of law. The executive cannot become a judge and demolish the properties of the persons accused.. The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building reminds one of lawlessness where might was right. Such highhanded and arbitrary actions have no place in a constitutional democracy. Such actions have to deal with a heavy hand of law. Our Constitutional ethos do not permit such a course of law…,” the Court pronounced,as quoted by Live Law.
The court also issued guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, requiring authorities to provide at least 15 days’ notice before any demolition. “Heavens will not fall if some time is given,” the court remarked, stressing the importance of due process.
This ruling follows petitions filed in response to the 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri, which had targeted the homes of individuals accused of criminal activities. Petitioners, including former Rajya Sabha MP Brinda Karat, sought a declaration from the court that authorities cannot use demolitions as a form of punishment. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave argued during a 2023 hearing that demolishing homes violated the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan presided over the case, issuing the judgment as a warning against the rising trend of “bulldozer justice.”