SC rules against ‘might is right’ bulldozer action, issues guidelines and fixes personal responsibility of erring officers

IN a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that government officers overseeing the illegal demolition of houses and properties belonging to accused or convicted persons will be personally responsible for restitution and damages.

A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan held that if the government arbitrarily demolishes houses of citizens only on the ground that they are accused of a crime, it acts contrary to the principles of the ‘rule of law’.

The court has thus raised hopes of putting a spanner in the works of the punitive demolition juggernaut that has been on a rampage in a few states.

The Bench observed that it is not a happy sight to see women, children and the aged forced into the streets overnight. In such cases, heavens would not fall if the authorities held their hands for some period, the Bench averred.

The Bench also observed that a house is not just a property, but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security and a future.

“Having a house or a roof over one’s head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available,” the Bench added.

The Bench also dealt with the notion of collective punishment inherent in such demolitions. It ruled that if punitive demolition of a house is permitted, wherein several persons of a family or a few families reside, only on the ground that one person residing in such a house is either an accused or convicted of a crime, it would amount to inflicting collective punishment on the entire family or families residing in such structure.

Explaining this point, the Bench put a question to itself: Whether the spouse of the accused, their children and parents living in the same house or co-owning the same property can be penalised by demolishing their property without them even being involved in any crime only on the basis of them being related to an alleged accused person?

The Bench said punishing persons who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house where they live or properties owned by them is nothing but anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Bench found the punitive demolition of the home only on the grounds of allegations that an accused has committed certain crimes against the rule of law, separation of power and the fundamental principles of innocence until proven guilty.

“If the executive, in an arbitrary manner, demolishes the houses of citizens only on the ground that they are accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of ‘rule of law’.

“If the executive acts as a judge and inflicts a penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of ‘separation of powers’.

“We are of the view that in such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions,” the Bench ruled.

The Bench has laid down mandatory guidelines to be followed by all state governments while undertaking the exercise of demolition having regard to due procedure.

The entire exercise will involve four stages. First, the notice stage. Second, the personal hearing. Third, the final Order of demolition. Fourth, an opportunity to challenge the final Order of demolition.

The Bench also observed that the right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21.

“Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional,” the Bench ruled.

At the stage of notice

The Bench ruled that no punitive demolitions must be carried out without giving a show cause notice to the owner of the house or property either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later.