NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday laid down stringent norms to curb bulldozer justice employed by certain states and said that the executive “can’t become judge” by declaring accused as guilty and demolish their house. It said that action would be taken against public officials who act in a “high-handed manner.”
It added that if houses of accused or convict was demolished without following the process of law, their family would be entitled to compensation.
It ruled that a mandatory 15-day notice must be given to the occupants of an alleged illegal structure before its removal. If the owner fails to contest or respond to the notice, the state would be permitted to proceed with the demolition, provided the entire process was videographed, it said.
It said that the public officials “who take law in their hands” and act in “high-handed manner” must be held accountable.
The bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan noted that “Rule of law provides framework to make sure individuals know property will not be taken away arbitrarily.”
“The executive can’t declare a person guilty. If based only on allegation, it demolishes his house, it would strike at basic principle of Rule of Law. Executive can’t become a judge and decide to demolish an accused’s property,” the bench said.
The apex court had reserved its order on October 1. It had extended the interim order preventing the demolition of any property without permission until further notice. However, the interim order did not apply to unauthorized constructions, including religious structures built on roads, footpaths, and similar areas.
The SC had remarked that India is a secular country and clarified that its directions on property demolitions will apply to all religions equally. The court made it clear that demolitions cannot be carried out solely on the grounds that an individual is accused or convicted of a crime.
The court was hearing various petitions related to the use of bulldozers by authorities to demolish properties. It specifically noted that minorities and marginalized communities were disproportionately affected by these demolitions, creating a troubling precedent for both these communities and the general public.