The SC strikes down ‘bulldozer justice,’ mandating strict accountability for officials involved in illegal demolitions
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgement against the practice of “bulldozer justice,†emphasising that officials who engage in illegal demolitions will now be held personally liable to restore properties and pay damages. The judgement is a response to the growing concern over arbitrary demolitions used as punitive measures, often targeting properties associated with individuals accused of crimes. The judgement introduces strict procedural requirements and enforces personal accountability for officials. This liability includes covering the cost of restoring the demolished properties and compensating affected parties. This measure is designed to deter officials from disregarding due process and underscores the responsibility that comes with exercising state power. The Supreme Court has established mandatory procedural guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions— A 15-day prior show-cause notice is required, along with a personal hearing; a detailed final order justifying why demolition is the only viable action must be provided and a 15-day grace period post-final order allows the affected party to seek legal recourse or vacate the premises.
The Supreme Court has mandated real-time updates on a digital portal for all demolition notices and orders to prevent arbitrary actions and foster transparency. Additionally, the entire demolition process must be videographed, with a list of officials involved to ensure accountability and adherence to procedure. Officials violating these directives risk contempt proceedings and prosecution, underscoring the Court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law. The judgement holds far-reaching implications for governance, rule of law and individual rights in India. By restricting demolitions carried out as a form of punishment, the Supreme Court reinforces the fundamental legal principle that the executive cannot act as judge and enforcer. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting individuals’ rights against arbitrary state action, affirming that everyone is entitled to due process before facing punitive measures. The decision is laudable because it is tough on arbitrary demolitions, which often infringe on the right to shelter, impacting families and communities and safeguards citizens’ fundamental rights, emphasising that actions targeting individuals suspected of crimes must follow legal due process. The judgement must come as a relief to many families who dread the demolition as one of them might have been on the wrong side of the law. However, the judgement falls short of putting onus on the political masters of the bureaucrats on whose behest such actions are often taken. Nevertheless, it would rein in the erring officers who go out of way to please their political masters. It is a bold move that could reshape administrative conduct.
