Pronunciation judgment In the ‘bulldozer issue’, the Supreme Court today stated in clear terms that demolishing a defendant’s house without complying with legal procedures would constitute ‘abuse of power’. If the executive takes such arbitrary action, it will be guilty of disobeying the principles of law and acting in an oppressive manner, which will result in it facing the ‘heavy hand of the law’.

“The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, where the authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and acted without due process, is a reminder of a situation where might makes right. The rule of law ensures that such overbearing and arbitrary actions are subject to such excesses at the hands of the executive, the severity of the law.” “Our constitutional values ​​do not allow such abuses of power and such disadvantages cannot be tolerated by the civil court.” said a bench Judges BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

He also added:

“We have stated that such an action cannot be taken against a person convicted of a crime, and even if it is the person in question, property/properties cannot be destroyed without complying with the procedures prescribed by law. The action of the executive will be completely arbitrary and will mean abuse of the legal process. In such a case, the executive must take the law into its own hands and “He will be guilty of submitting to the principles of law.”

Referring to the principle of separation of powers, the Court emphasized that the judiciary and the executive operate in separate areas. Destroying the house of a person who has not been tried just because he is a defendant will exceed the authority of the executive branch and take over the judicial duties given to the judiciary.

“It is against the fundamental principle of the rule of law and is not permissible for the executive branch to destroy the property of the defendant, based only on accusations, without acting in accordance with the law. The executive branch cannot be the judge and decide that the defendant is guilty and therefore punish him by demolishing his residential or commercial property/property.” “Such an action by the executive would be overstepping its limits.”

“The executive wing and the judicial wing of the Constitution fulfill their duties in their own fields… The decisions in question will raise the question of whether state government officials can undertake this duty when the judicial duties are transferred to the judiciary. A person who undertakes the judicial duty on his own and is not subject to trial is sentenced to the destruction of his property, “In our constitutional structure, the executive cannot be allowed to replace the judiciary as fundamental functions.”

On the rule of law

The decision emphasized the importance of protecting the rule of law by saying, “Ensuring the protection of the principle of the rule of law and the civil rights and freedoms of citizens is essential for the protection of constitutional democracy.”

The court stated that if the executive violates the principles of ‘rule of law’ and ‘separation of powers’, the doctrine of public trust and accountability will come into play.

“If the executive arbitrarily demolishes citizens’ houses just on the grounds that they are accused of a crime, this means that it violates the principle of ‘rule of law’. Demolition of a citizen on the grounds that he is a defendant is against the principle of ‘separation of powers’. We believe that public officials who take the law into their hands in such matters should be held accountable.” .such harsh actions” The court decided.

Rights of the accused

The decision also discussed the rights guaranteed to defendants under the Constitution, including the right to a fair trial. They have the right to dignity and cannot be subjected to any cruel or inhuman treatment. The punishment given to these people must be in accordance with the law. Such punishment cannot be inhumane or cruel.

“Firstly, even the defendants or convicts have some rights and guarantees in accordance with the constitutional provisions and criminal law. Secondly, the State and its authorities cannot take arbitrary and excessive measures against the defendant, even the convicts, without legal proceedings. The third principle to emerge is that the rights of the defendant or convict “There must be institutional accountability for any unlawful or arbitrary use or negligence or inaction of the State or its officials.”

The court emphasized that the principle that “the accused is not guilty unless proven in court” is the basis of every legal system.

Also Read- Postpone Demolitions for 15 Days, Officials’ Personal Liability for Violations: Read Supreme Court’s Guidelines Against ‘Bulldozer’ Actions

Other reports on the decision can be read Here.

Case Title: Re: Guidelines on Demolition of Buildings v. and Ors. | Writ Petition No. 295 of 2022 (and related case)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884

Click to read the decision