An Analysis of the Bulldozer Judgment: Safeguarding Constitutional Principles

Vaidehi Sharma is a fourth year law student enrolled in the five-year BA LLB program at Mohanlal Sukhadia University.

---

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures

v

State/ Union of India

“अपना घर हो, अपना आंगन हो,
इस ख्वाब मेंहर कोई जीता है।
इंसान के दिल की येचाहत है,
दक एक घर का सपना कभी न छू टे।”

(To have one’s own home, one’s own courtyard – this dream lives
in every heart. It’s a longing that never fades, to never lose the
dream of a home.)
This is how the importance of shelter has been described by
a famous Hindi poet ‘Pradeep’.
It is a dream of every person, every family to have a shelter
above their heads. A house is an embodiment of the collective
hopes of a family or individuals’ stability and security.
An important question as to whether the executive should
be permitted to take away the shelter of a family or families as a
measure for infliction of penalty on a person who is accused in a
crime under our constitutional scheme or not arises for
consideration.  

-by the bench

Overview of the Judgment

As widely accepted the Indian judicial system works on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, the wide practice of bulldozer justice is unfair in numerous ways. Not only it breaches the fundamental principles of our judicial system, but also encroaches upon the individual rights and liberty of citizens. In this regard, the recent judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures[1] holds relevance. In fact, the judgment restores faith in the independent judicial system that works without biases towards any political or other organization. This judgment has once again upheld the independence of the judiciary as affirmed by Article 50 of the Indian Constitution.

This judgment critically addresses the issue of numerous demolitions of properties across states linked to individuals accused of criminal offenses and whether such practice can be justified without adhering to due process of law. Delivered by the Supreme Court in 2024, the judgment underscores the importance of constitutional protections, the rule of law, and procedural safeguards protecting the core principles of the Indian Constitution.

It also established guidelines to prevent misuse of executive powers, ensuring that such demolitions do not become tools of arbitrariness used unconditionally by governments. Collectively, the Court aimed to strike a balance between upholding law and order and protecting the fundamental rights of individuals as ensured by the Indian Constitution.

Provisions and Concepts Involved

The judgment revolves around fundamental principles of constitutional and administrative law, including Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the fundamental principle of the Rule of Law by A.V. Dicey, the Doctrine of Public Trust, and the principle of natural justice. Below is the breakdown of each concept as used in the judgment:

1. Article 14 vis-à-vis Equality before Law: The judgment emphasized that equality before the law, a key component of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, is fundamental to ensuring fairness in state actions. Arbitrary and unwarranted demolitions disproportionately targeting individuals or communities undermines this right. The Court actively demonstrated that selective demolitions, particularly when related to accusations of criminal activity, violate Article 14 by enabling discrimination and malafide intent.

2. Article 21 (Right to Life and Shelter): The Court recognized the right to shelter as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21[2]. It referred to the idea that a house is not merely a structure but a foundation for dignity, security, and stability.

   “A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of family or individuals for stability, security, and a future,”[3] Justice Gavai said.

   Demolitions executed without adherence to due process were deemed to violate Article 21, as they deprived individuals of their fundamental right to life without legal justification.

3. Rule of Law by A.V. Dicey: The concept of Rule of Law as introduced by A.V. Dicey forms the central theme of the judgment. Dicey’s three components—no one is above the law, equality under the law, and predominance of legal spirit[4]—are applied to scrutinize the demolitions. The judgment stresses that even the state cannot act outside the boundaries of law and holds that targeting individuals accused of crimes without extending the same treatment to similarly situated persons breaches this principle. The court also highlighted that decisions must be made only after following the ordinary legal process, ensuring fairness and the opportunity for judicial review. This showcases that arbitrary actions by any organ of the government are not tolerated in a democracy.
4. Doctrine of Public Trust: The Doctrine of Public Trust, typically applied in environmental cases, evolved from the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[5] was extended to the present case to reaffirm the accountability of the state in safeguarding constitutional rights. The Court held that the state is a trustee of public interest, and its actions must align with transparency, fairness, and public welfare. Arbitrary demolitions breach the trust placed in the state by citizens, as they are not justified by law and lack procedural safeguards. The judgment emphasized that public officers are accountable for both irresponsible actions and inaction.

5. Principle of Natural Justice: The principles of audi alteram partem (“listen to the other side”) and nemo judex in causa sua (“no one should be a judge in their own cause”), the key components of the principles of natural justice were emphasized as cornerstones of justice. The judgment mandated that no demolition could be executed without adequate notice, specifying the alleged violation and giving the affected party time to respond.

• Judicial Oversight: By prohibiting the executive from adjudicating violations without court involvement, the judgment upheld the separation of powers and principles of procedural fairness.
• The Court cited Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa to highlight that violations of natural justice erode public confidence in governance.

Facts of the Case

This judgment arose out of numerous writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution where the petitioners challenged the demolition of residential and commercial properties of people who had been accused of committing crimes. The demolitions were carried out by respective state machinery allegedly without any prior notice or hearing and hence were considered a case of collective punishment that affects whole families. The state machinery justified its actions on grounds of legal rights to remove unauthorized structures. However, the demolitions were alleged to be politically motivated and disproportionately targeted marginalized communities. It was also alleged to be violating the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Issues Before the Court

The key issue that the bench of Justices Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan had to consider was ‘whether the properties of the persons, who are accused of committing certain crimes or for that matter even convicted for the commission of criminal offenses, can be demolished without following the due process of law or not?’[6] However, the issue could be broken down for a better understanding:

1. First, it considered whether the properties of individuals accused of crimes could be demolished without due process of law.
2. Second, the Court examined whether such actions violated constitutional rights, including the right to shelter and equality before the law.
3. Third, it explored the extent to which executive actions in such cases adhered to the principles of public trust and accountability.
4. Lastly, the Court deliberated on the need for a uniform framework to regulate demolitions and prevent misuse of executive powers.

Cases Referred

The judgment referred to several landmark decisions to substantiate its reasoning. In Southam v. Smout[7], the sanctity of an individual’s home against arbitrary state intrusion was emphasized. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[8]established the rule of law as part of the Constitution’s basic structure, reinforcing the need for checks on state actions. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India[9], the balance between state power and citizens’ rights was highlighted, underscoring the need for procedural safeguards.

Similarly, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.[10]discussed the significance of the rule of law in preventing abuse of power, while Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India[11] stressed public accountability in state actions. These references collectively influenced the Court’s decision to reinforce constitutional principles and ensure that executive powers are exercised within legal boundaries and not as tools of arbitrariness.

Judgment

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court was well-reasoned, emphasizing adherence to the rule of law and constitutional principles. It categorically held that no person could be deprived of property or penalized without due process. The Court prohibited collective punishment, asserting that the state could not penalize families for the alleged crimes of an individual.

The judgment provided broad guidelines for future actions. These included that demolitions should not be done without prior notice, proper hearings, and legal justification. Authorities were ordered to make demolitions proportionate by targeting only unauthorized portions of structures. Notice publication and detailed record keeping were mandated as a form of transparency. The notice to be served must contain:

• ‘nature of the unauthorized construction,
• the grounds, and specific violations for which demolition is being ordered
• a list of the documents that have to be given alongside the reply,
• the date on which the personal hearing is fixed
• before which designated authority hearing will take place’[12].

Victims of illegal demolitions were entitled to compensatory damages, and erring officials were held personally liable. The judgment reaffirmed justice, fairness, and accountability, ensuring that the states’ actions conformed with constitutional mandates. Additionally, ‘the Court noted that demolition of houses as a means of inflicting punishment, was “wholly impossible in our constitutional setup.” Adjudicatory functions were entrusted to the judiciary’[13].

Conclusion

The “Bulldozer Judgment” is a landmark ruling that reinforces constitutional values against arbitrary state actions. By establishing a robust framework to protect individuals’ rights to property and shelter, the judgment ensures executive accountability and adherence to due process. It upholds principles of justice and equality, aligning governance with the tenets of a constitutional democracy. The judgment sets a significant precedent for safeguarding civil liberties in the face of state overreach, emphasizing that even in the pursuit of law enforcement, constitutional rights must remain paramount.

[1] WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.295 OF 2022

[2] Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 1051

[3]https://www.scobserver.in/journal/bulldozer-demolitions-remind-of-a-lawless-ruthless-state-of-affairs-declares-supreme-court-as-it-issues-pan-india-guidelines/

[4] https://lc2.du.ac.in/DATA/Presentation%20on%20Rule%20of%20Law_Chintu%20Jain.pdf

[5]  (1997) 1 SCC 388

[6] https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Bullldozer-demolitions-guidelines-judgement-supreme-court.pdf

[7] [1964] 1 QB 308

[8] (1976) 2 SCR 347

[9] [2018] 8 S.C.R. 1

[10] [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1

[11]8 SCC 202: (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 23]

[12] Infra note 13

[13] https://www.scobserver.in/journal/bulldozer-demolitions-remind-of-a-lawless-ruthless-state-of-affairs-declares-supreme-court-as-it-issues-pan-india-guidelines/

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Check pdf section to download the judgment for mobile user.