Supreme Court Denounces Arbitrary Demolitions: Safeguards Fundamental Rights Against Executive Overreach

Keywords ; Supreme Court, arbitrary demolitions, bulldozer justice, fundamental rights, right to shelter, due process, executive overreach,

Supreme Court Declares Arbitrary Property Demolitions Unlawful, Issues Guidelines for Due Process

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled against the arbitrary demolition of properties by public authorities, particularly targeting individuals accused or convicted of crimes, terming such actions as unconstitutional. The decision comes amidst widespread criticism of “bulldozer justice,” a practice wherein the executive resorts to demolishing properties of the accused without adhering to due process.

Case Background

The case arose in response to executive actions across several states where properties were swiftly demolished as punitive measures against individuals accused of crimes. The practice, condemned as undermining the rule of law, was brought to the judiciary’s attention due to its violation of constitutional protections, including the right to life and shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Claims:

• Demolitions were arbitrary, excessive, and denied individuals the opportunity to contest.
• Violated natural justice and the fundamental right to shelter.
• Conducted without adequate notice or adherence to legal procedures.

Respondent’s Defense:

• Justified demolitions in cases of unlawful construction or illegal activities.
• Failed to substantiate claims that due process was followed or constitutional rights were not violated.

Court’s Observations

Separation of Powers and Rule of Law

The Court underscored the principle of separation of powers, affirming that the executive, as the law enforcer, cannot assume the role of the judiciary to declare guilt or impose punishments through demolitions.

Violation of Article 21

The arbitrary demolition of properties infringes upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which includes the right to shelter. The Court emphasized that even those convicted of serious crimes are entitled to constitutional safeguards like a fair trial and the right to appeal.

Due Process as a Safeguard

The Court declared that demolitions without proper legal notice and an opportunity for affected parties to be heard are unconstitutional, reinforcing the importance of procedural fairness in executive actions.

Guidelines Issued by the Court

1. Mandatory Notice Period: A 15-day notice must be issued before any demolition, allowing affected individuals time to challenge the order or vacate the premises.
2. Accountability of Officials: Public officers failing to comply with the guidelines would be personally liable for compensation, ensuring accountability in executive actions.
3. Exceptions: The ruling does not apply to demolitions authorized by judicial orders or those involving structures illegally built on public spaces.

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment reinforces constitutional protections against executive overreach and upholds the fundamental rights of individuals. By introducing safeguards, the Supreme Court has ensured that public authorities cannot act with impunity, thereby restoring faith in the rule of law.

Implications and Way Forward

The directive has significant implications for governance and human rights, urging public authorities to respect due process while exercising their powers. The exceptions carved out ensure that the judgment does not hinder legitimate actions taken for public safety or based on judicial orders.

This ruling is a decisive step toward curbing misuse of executive power, emphasizing that the state must act as a trustee of its citizens, bound by constitutional principles.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.