Why in News?

Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid down a series of guidelines to ensure that due process is followed for demolishing the properties of citizens accused of crimes.

This ruling comes after a series of cases in which state authorities allegedly demolished properties as a punitive measure, a practice referred to by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as “bulldozer justice.”

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What is the Case Background?
• SC Guidelines on Demolition Procedures
• SC’s Reasoning Behind the Guidelines
• Demolition Laws and Practices Across Indian States
• Impact of the SC’s Verdict
• Conclusion

What is the Case Background?

• The SC's verdict addressed pleas challenging the practice of demolishing homes of individuals accused of criminal activities.
• This practice, seen in states like UP, MP, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan, has often led to accusations of bias and lack of due process.
• The ruling was prompted by recent cases in Ratlam (MP) and Udaipur (Rajasthan), where demolitions were linked to allegations against family members involved in communal or criminal incidents.

SC Guidelines on Demolition Procedures:

• Mandatory notice period:
  • The Court mandates that a minimum of 15 days’ notice must be given to the property owner or occupier before a demolition.
  • This notice must outline the reasons for demolition and schedule a “personal hearing” to allow property owners a chance to contest.
• Hearing and final order:
  • Authorities must conduct a hearing and document all proceedings.
  • The final demolition order must include the arguments presented by the owner, the reasons for demolition, and whether full or partial demolition is required.
  • The Court emphasised that demolitions should be the last resort and ordered only when deemed absolutely necessary.
• Post-order process:
  • If a final order for demolition is issued, a 15-day period will follow to allow the owner time to either remove the structure or appeal in court.
  • Authorities must also record a video of the demolition and prepare an inspection and demolition report listing the personnel involved.

SC’s Reasoning Behind the Guidelines:

• Separation of powers:
  • The Court asserted that the judiciary, not the executive, is responsible for determining guilt.
  • It emphasised that punishing an accused by demolishing their property without a judicial trial oversteps executive boundaries.
• Public trust and accountability:
  • The Court highlighted the need for transparency, stating that public officials should be held accountable for misuse of authority, particularly when demolitions target properties merely because the owner is an accused.
• Right to shelter:
  • The SC noted that demolitions affect not only the accused but also other family members who have a constitutional right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • The guidelines aim to protect these individuals from losing their homes unjustly.

Demolition Laws and Practices Across Indian States:

• Rajasthan: Under provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, authorities can confiscate properties that encroach public land, provided they serve a written notice with grounds for confiscation and allow a chance for representation.
• MP: The MP Municipalities Act allows demolition of unauthorised constructions only after serving notice to owners.
• UP: The UP Urban Planning and Development Act mandates that an owner receive a minimum notice period of 15 days before demolition of unauthorised structures. The owner can appeal the order, but once finalised, it cannot be contested in court.
• Delhi: The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act allows removal of unauthorised structures with “reasonable opportunity” for the owner to appeal.
• Haryana: The Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, similar to Delhi’s DMC Act, provides owners a brief period to challenge demolitions but has a shorter window (3 days) to comply with demolition orders.

Impact of the SC’s Verdict:

• Providing a path forward: Affected families hope that the ruling will push local authorities toward providing restitution, either through compensation or through the restoration of demolished properties.
• Challenges in implementation:
  • While the SC’s verdict calls for transparency and accountability, there are still gaps in ensuring that compensation reaches those already affected.
  • Hence, the future policies must address the issue of restitution, ensuring fair outcomes for those unjustly impacted by “bulldozer justice.”

Conclusion:

• By safeguarding the right to shelter and enforcing accountability, the Court aims to prevent “bulldozer justice” and ensure that the government operates within constitutional boundaries.
• However, for those who have already lost their homes, the struggle for justice is far from over, as the questions about restitution remain unresolved.