News Brief
'Accused Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty': Supreme Court Ruling Prohibits Bulldozer Demolitions Based on Criminal Allegations
Bulldozer Carrying Out Demolition Drive
In a ruling on Wednesday (13 November), the Supreme Court of India declared that the homes of individuals accused or convicted of criminal offenses cannot be demolished by state authorities solely on the basis of their alleged criminal activities, deeming such actions illegal and unconstitutional.
The decision was made by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan in the case In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, underscoring the judiciary’s role in determining guilt and penalizing offenders.
The bench emphasised that state authorities lack the authority to determine guilt and cannot impose punitive actions such as home demolitions.
"If a property is demolished only because the person is accused, it is wholly unconstitutional," the court stated, stressing that "the executive cannot determine who is guilty and cannot become a judge."
The bench highlighted that the judiciary alone holds the responsibility to assess guilt and administer justice, cautioning that bulldozer actions under the executive’s discretion could lead to abuses of power that contravene constitutional principles.
The court also noted that even in cases where an individual has been convicted of a crime, demolishing their residence is not permissible. Such executive actions would be equivalent to circumventing judicial procedures and represent an overreach that intrudes upon citizens’ fundamental rights.
In its judgment, the court affirmed that demolishing an individual’s home infringes upon the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Gavai and Justice Viswanathan pointed out that a residence often symbolises years of personal and financial struggle and serves as a source of dignity and security for the individual and their family. Taking away this right without proper legal procedure would unjustly impact not only the accused but also their families, turning the act into a form of collective punishment that the Constitution does not permit.
"The settled principle of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, and demolishing the structure would unjustly punish all family members,” the court asserted. The judgment reinforced that the right to shelter must be safeguarded, as depriving the innocent of this right would constitute an unconstitutional violation.
The court made it clear that arbitrary demolitions conducted without due process violate constitutional values and the principle of separation of powers.
When a structure is selectively demolished, while others remain intact, "mala fide intent is writ large," suggesting that such actions may serve punitive motives rather than legitimate enforcement of building regulations.
New Guidelines to Prevent "Bulldozer Justice"
In its detailed ruling, the court issued a series of binding guidelines to ensure that any future demolitions are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. The new directives include:
Right to Appeal: Individuals must be given sufficient time to appeal a demolition order.
Notice Requirement: Authorities must issue a show-cause notice before any demolition, sent by registered post and displayed outside the property. A minimum of 15 days from the notice issuance and seven days after its delivery must be allowed before any further action is taken.
Notice Details: Notices should specify the nature of the violations, the date and authority for a personal hearing, allowing affected parties to respond.
Administrative Oversight: Notification of the proposed demolition must be sent to the District Magistrate (DM) and Collector, who are tasked with appointing nodal officers to oversee demolitions.
Transparency via Digital Portals: A designated digital portal should display all demolition notices and orders, ensuring public access to these records.
Documentation and Hearings: Records from personal hearings must be meticulously kept, and final orders must clarify why demolition was necessary if only part of a structure is found non-compoundable.
Owner's Opportunity to Self-Demolish: Property owners should be given 15 days to remove unauthorized structures themselves after a demolition order, provided no appellate body has issued a stay.
Videography of Demolitions: All demolition proceedings must be recorded on video, with the footage preserved as evidence.
Post-Demolition Reporting: A comprehensive demolition report should be forwarded to the municipal commissioner.
The court warned that officials who fail to comply with these directives could face contempt charges and prosecution. Additionally, they would be held liable for restitution of the demolished property at their own cost, along with compensation for the affected parties. However, the court clarified that these guidelines would not impact actions taken against illegal structures on public lands such as roads and riverbanks.
