(General Studies II – Polity Section – Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.)
- The Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment addresses the misuse of demolition drives as punitive measures against individuals accused of crimes, a practice that has raised significant legal and ethical concerns.
- This verdict establishes comprehensive guidelines to ensure due process and uphold the rule of law, marking a pivotal step in safeguarding citizens’ rights.
Background –
- In recent years, several states have employed demolition drives targeting properties of individuals accused of criminal activities, often without proper legal procedures.
- This approach, colloquially termed “bulldozer justice,” has been criticized for undermining legal norms and disproportionately affecting marginalized communities.
- Notable instances include demolition actions in Khargone, Madhya Pradesh, and Jahangirpuri, Delhi, in 2022, which followed communal tensions and were perceived as punitive rather than administrative measures.
Moral and Ethical Issues in Bulldozer Justice Violation of the Rule of Law: Demolishing properties without due legal process undermines justice and fairness, eroding the legal framework by bypassing mandatory notices and hearings.Breach of Fundamental Rights: Arbitrary demolitions violate the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21, rendering families homeless without legal justification.Presumption of Innocence: Punishing individuals through demolitions before legal conviction contravenes the principle of innocence until proven guilty, amounting to extrajudicial punishment.Collective Punishment: Demolition drives unfairly penalize entire families and communities, raising ethical concerns over disproportionate harm to innocent parties.Communal Bias: These actions allegedly have disproportionately targeted minorities, particularly Muslims, fostering discrimination and deepening social divides.Authoritarian Tendencies: Using state machinery for punitive demolitions reflects a shift toward authoritarianism, with executive overreach sidelining judicial processes. |
Supreme Court’s Guidelines –
In response to petitions challenging these arbitrary demolitions, the Supreme Court, in November 2024, issued directives to ensure that demolitions adhere to due process:
- Prior Notice: Authorities must issue a show-cause notice, providing a minimum of 15 days for the affected individuals to respond. This notice should detail the violations and grounds for the proposed demolition.
- Service of Notice: Notices must be served via registered mail and conspicuously posted on the property. Additionally, an email notification should be sent to the district’s Collector or District Magistrate.
- Opportunity for Hearing: Affected individuals are entitled to a personal hearing before any demolition order is executed.
- Reasoned Order: Authorities must issue a detailed order explaining the rationale behind the demolition decision.
- Documentation: An inspection report, signed by witnesses, should be prepared, and the entire demolition process must be video-recorded to ensure transparency.
- Digital Transparency: Within three months, municipal and local authorities are required to establish a digital portal where notices, replies, and orders related to demolitions are uploaded for public access.
These guidelines aim to prevent misuse of power and ensure that demolitions are conducted lawfully, respecting individuals’ rights and property.
Implications for Governance –
The Court’s directives emphasize the importance of due process and accountability in administrative actions. By mandating transparency and adherence to legal procedures, the judgment seeks to curb arbitrary actions by authorities and uphold the rule of law. It also underscores the separation of powers, cautioning against executive overreach into judicial functions.
The Supreme Court’s intervention serves as a crucial check against the arbitrary use of demolition as a punitive tool. By instituting clear guidelines, the Court reinforces the principles of due process and accountability, ensuring that administrative actions do not infringe upon citizens’ rights. This judgment is a significant step toward maintaining the integrity of legal processes and protecting individual liberties in India. |