The Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and legal process should not prejudge guilt of an accused, the Supreme Court said today, taking a tough stand on the issue of ‘bulldozer justice’ and laying down guidelines for carrying out demolition.

The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan delivered its judgment on petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes. This trend, which caught on in several states, is referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’. State authorities have, in the past, said only illegal structures were demolished in such cases. But several petitions were filed before the court, flagging the extrajudicial nature of the action.

Justice Gavai said it is the dream of every family to have a house and an important question before the court was whether the Executive should be allowed to take away someone’s shelter. “The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic government… the issue relates to fairness in the criminal justice system, which mandates that legal process should not prejudge guilt of accused,” the bench said.

“We have considered the rights guaranteed under the Constitution that provide protection to individuals from arbitrary State action. The rule of law provides a framework to make sure individuals know property will not be taken away arbitrarily,” it added.

On the separation of powers, the bench said adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the judiciary and the “Executive cannot replace the Judiciary”. “We have referred to the doctrine of public trust and public accountability. We have concluded that if Executive demolishes the house of person arbitrarily merely because he is accused, it violates principle of separation of powers,” Justice Gavai said.

The court said accountability must be fixed on public officials who take law into their hands and act in a high-handed manner. “State and its officials can’t take arbitrary and excessive measures. If any officer of the State has abused his power or acted in total arbitrary or malafide manner, he cannot be spared,” it added.

Justice Gavai pointed that when a particular structure is chosen for demolition suddenly and similar other properties are not touched, then the presumption could be that the real motive was not razing the illegal structure, but “penalising without trial”.

“For an average citizen, construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. House embodies collective hope of security and future. If this is taken away, authorities must satisfy it is the only way,” the bench said.

The court also questioned if authorities can demolish a house and deprive its residents of shelter if only one person residing there is an accused.

Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for demolitions. It said no demolition should be carried out without a showcause notice. The person this notice is served to can respond within 15 days or the time provided in local civic laws, whichever is later.

This notice must have information of the nature of unauthorised construction, details on the specific violation and the grounds for demolition, the court said. The authority concerned must hear the accused and then pass a final order, it added. The house owner will be given a 15-day period to remove the illegal structure and authorities will proceed with a demolition only if an appellate authority doesn’t pause the order.

Violation of the court’s directions would lead to contempt proceedings, the bench warned. Officers should be told that if a demolition exercise is found to be in violation of norms, they will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property, the court said. The cost for this, the court said, would be recovered from the officials’ salary.

The court said all local municipal authorities must set up a digital portal within three months that has details of showcause notices served and final orders on illegal structures.

Hearing a petition against ‘bulldozer justice’ today, the Supreme Court today said that the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and the law should not prejudge an accused’s guilt.

Here are the top quotes from the Supreme Court:

Public officials who take the law in their own hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability.
The State and its officials cannot take arbitrary and excessive measures. When the right of the accused or convict is violated by the State on account of arbitrariness, there has to be restitution.
Excesses at the hands of the Executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos do not permit any such abuse of power; cannot be tolerated by a Court of law.
The Executive cannot declare a person guilty. If based only on an allegation, it demolishes his house, it would strike at the basic principle of the Rule of Law. The Executive cannot become a judge and decide to demolish an accused’s property.
If any officer of the State has abused his power or acted in a totally arbitrary or malafide manner, he cannot be spared.
When a particular structure is chosen for demolition all of a sudden, and the rest of similar properties are not touched, the presumption could be that real motive was not the legal structure, but the action of penalising without trial.
The right to shelter is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. If persons have to be dis-housed, authorities must satisfy that demolition is the only option available instead of demolishing part of the house.
For an average citizen, the construction of a house is a culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. House embodies collective hope of security and the future. If this is taken away, authorities must satisfy it is the only way.
The question to be considered if only one person residing in the house is accused, would authorities be permitted to demolish the entire structure and remove shelter from heads of persons who are not directly or indirectly related to the crime.
It is not a happy sight to see women, children dragged to the street in the night. These directions will not be applicable if there is any unauthorised construction on public land, also where there is a demolition order by a Court of Law.
No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in local municipal laws or within 15 days from the date of service, whichever is later.
The notice shall be served upon owner by registered post. It shall also be fixed on the outer portion of the structure. Notice shall contain the nature of unauthorised construction, details of specific violation and grounds of demolition.
The designated authority shall give the opportunity of personal hearing to the accused and the minutes of such meetings shall be recorded. A final order of authority shall contain contentions of notice.
Proceedings of demolition shall be videographed. The demolition report should be displayed on a digital portal.
Violation of any direction would lead to the initiation of contempt proceedings. Officers should be informed that if demolition is found to be in violation, they will be held responsible for the restitution of demolished property.
The officials will be held responsible at their personal cost, in addition to payment of damages.
If a person’s house is demolished, merely because he is an accused/convict, without following the process of law, it would be “totally unconstitutional” for more than one reason.
The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without due process reminds one of the state of affairs wherein might is right.

Police in Noida arrested a 46-year-old man for allegedly running a cannabis farm out of his apartment. Rahul Chaudhury was found with 80 plants worth an estimated Rs 60 lakh, along with growing equipment. Chaudhury, who reportedly learned to cultivate cannabis online, allegedly sold the drugs on the dark web.