'The Accused Is Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty': Supreme Court Decision Bans Bulldozer Demolitions Based on Criminal Accusations
On Wednesday (13 November), the Supreme Court of India ruled that houses belonging to individuals accused or convicted of criminal offenses cannot be destroyed by state authorities solely on the grounds of their alleged criminal activities, declaring such actions unlawful and against the constitution.
The judgment was handed down by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan in the case In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, highlighting the judiciary's role in determining guilt and penalizing wrongdoers.
The bench stressed that state authorities do not have the power to decide guilt or levy punitive measures like demolishing homes.
"If a property is demolished simply because someone has been accused, it is completely unconstitutional," the court asserted, emphasizing that "the executive branch cannot decide who is guilty and cannot act as a judge."
The bench underscored that only the judiciary has the authority to determine guilt and dispense justice, warning that bulldozer demolitions carried out at the discretion of the executive could result in abuses of power that go against constitutional principles.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that even in cases where an individual has been convicted of a crime, destroying their home is not allowed. Such presidential directives would be like bypassing court processes and show an excessive intrusion into people's basic rights. The court ruled that tearing down someone's house violates their right to housing under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justices Gavai and Viswanathan highlighted that a home typically represents many years of personal and financial hardships and acts as a vital source of dignity and safety for the person and their family. Depriving this right without correct legal process would unfairly affect not just the accused but also their families, making it a type of collective punishment that the Constitution does not allow.
"The established rule of criminal justice is that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and dismantling the system would unfairly punish all family members," the court stated. The ruling emphasized the importance of protecting the right to shelter, stating that denying innocent individuals this right would be deemed unconstitutional.
It was clarified by the court that demolitions carried out without proper legal procedures violate constitutional principles and the concept of separation of powers.
When a building is demolished selectively, while others remain untouched, there is a clear indication of malicious intent, indicating that such actions may be driven by punitive motives rather than lawful enforcement of construction laws.
To prevent potential abuse of authority, the court required that public and government officials responsible for arbitrary demolitions be held responsible. It stipulated that responsible authorities must not only bear repercussions but also provide redress to individuals harmed by such illegal activities.
New Directives to Stop Unfair "Bulldozer Justice"
The court, in its thorough judgment, released a set of enforceable rules to guarantee that all upcoming demolitions are executed justly and in compliance with the law. The updated guidelines feature:
Right to Appeal: People should have an adequate amount of time to appeal a demolition order.
Notice Requirement: Officials must provide a show-cause notice prior to any demolition, which must be sent via registered post and displayed on the property. At least 15 days after the notice is issued and seven days after delivery should elapse before taking further action.
Notice Details: Notices need to detail the violations, hearing date, and authority for a personal hearing, to allow affected parties to respond.
Administrative Oversight: The District Magistrate (DM) and Collector must be notified of the proposed demolition, and they will appoint nodal officers to supervise demolitions.
Transparency via Digital Portals: A designated digital portal must display all demolition notices and orders for public access.
Documentation and Hearings: Records from personal hearings should be carefully maintained, and final orders must explain the necessity of demolition if only a portion of a structure is deemed non-compoundable.
Owner's Opportunity to Self-Demolish: Property owners are given 15 days to remove unauthorized structures themselves following a demolition order, unless an appellate body issues a stay.
Videography of Demolitions: All demolition proceedings must be recorded on video and the footage kept as evidence.
Post-Demolition Reporting: A detailed demolition report must be submitted to the municipal commissioner.
The court cautioned that officials failing to adhere to these directives could face contempt charges and prosecution. Furthermore, they will be responsible for reimbursing the cost of the damaged property and providing compensation to those affected. Nevertheless, the court specified that these guidelines would not affect measures taken against unauthorized constructions on public properties like roads and riverbanks.
